Combined Low-Dose Contrast-Enhanced MR Angiography and Perfusion for Acute Ischemic Stroke at 3T: A More Efficient Stroke Protocol

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Lloyd-Jones D,
   2. Adams RJ,
   3. Brown TM,
   4. et al

   . Heart disease and stroke statistics–2010 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2010;121:e46–e215

   FREE Full Text
2. 2.↵
   1. Saver JL

   . Time is brain–quantified. Stroke 2006;37:263–66

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
3. 3.↵
   1. Sohn CH,
   2. Sevick RJ,
   3. Frayne R

   . Contrast-enhanced MR angiography of the intracranial circulation. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2003;11:599–614

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Bernstein MA,
   2. Huston J 3rd.,
   3. Lin C,
   4. et al

   . High-resolution intracranial and cervical MRA at 3.0T: technical considerations and initial experience. Magn Reson Medicine 2001;46:955–62

   CrossRef
5. 5.↵
   1. Takano K,
   2. Utsunomiya H,
   3. Ono H,
   4. et al

   . Dynamic contrast-enhanced subtraction MR angiography in intracranial vascular abnormalities. Eur Radiol 1999;9:1909–12

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   1. Tomasian A,
   2. Salamon N,
   3. Lohan DG,
   4. et al

   . Supraaortic arteries: contrast material dose reduction at 3.0-T high-spatial-resolution MR angiography–feasibility study. Radiology 2008;249:980–90

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
7. 7.↵
   1. Nael K,
   2. Moriarty JM,
   3. Finn JP

   . Low dose CE-MRA. Eur J Radiol 2011;80:2–8

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Heiland S,
   2. Reith W,
   3. Forsting M,
   4. et al

   . How do concentration and dosage of the contrast agent affect the signal change in perfusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging? A computer simulation. Magn Reson Imaging 2001;19:813–20

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Alger JR,
   2. Schaewe TJ,
   3. Lai TC,
   4. et al

   . Contrast agent dose effects in cerebral dynamic susceptibility contrast magnetic resonance perfusion imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2009;29:52–64

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    1. Manka C,
    2. Traber F,
    3. Gieseke J,
    4. et al

    . Three-dimensional dynamic susceptibility-weighted perfusion MR imaging at 3.0 T: feasibility and contrast agent dose. Radiology 2005;234:869–77

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
11. 11.↵
    1. Alger JR,
    2. Schaewe TJ,
    3. Liebeskind DS,
    4. et al

    . On the feasibility of reduced dose dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion MRI for stroke. Paper presented at International Society of Magnetic Resonance Medicine, Montréal, Québec, Canada. May 7–13, 2011
12. 12.↵
    1. Griswold MA,
    2. Jakob PM,
    3. Heidemann RM,
    4. et al

    . Generalized autocalibrating partially parallel acquisitions (GRAPPA). Magn Reson Med 2002;47:1202–10

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
13. 13.↵
    1. Habibi R,
    2. Krishnam MS,
    3. Lohan DG,
    4. et al

    . High-spatial-resolution lower extremity MR angiography at 3.0 T: contrast agent dose comparison study. Radiology 2008;248:680–92

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
14. 14.↵
    1. Wu O,
    2. Ostergaard L,
    3. Weisskoff RM,
    4. et al

    . Tracer arrival timing-insensitive technique for estimating flow in MR perfusion-weighted imaging using singular value decomposition with a block-circulant deconvolution matrix. Magn Reson Med 2003;50:164–74

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
15. 15.↵
    1. Lin W,
    2. Tkach JA,
    3. Haacke EM,
    4. et al

    . Intracranial MR angiography: application of magnetization transfer contrast and fat saturation to short gradient-echo, velocity-compensated sequences. Radiology 1993;186:753–61

    PubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Isoda H,
    2. Takehara Y,
    3. Isogai S,
    4. et al

    . MRA of intracranial aneurysm models: a comparison of contrast-enhanced three-dimensional MRA with time-of-flight MRA. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2000;24:308–15

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    1. Nael K,
    2. Villablanca JP,
    3. Pope WB,
    4. et al

    . Supraaortic arteries: contrast-enhanced MR angiography at 3.0 T–highly accelerated parallel acquisition for improved spatial resolution over an extended field of view. Radiology 2007;242:600–09

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
18. 18.↵
    1. Phan T,
    2. Huston J 3rd.,
    3. Bernstein MA,
    4. et al

    . Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography of the cervical vessels: experience with 422 patients. Stroke 2001;32:2282–86

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
19. 19.↵
    1. Butcher KS,
    2. Parsons M,
    3. MacGregor L,
    4. et al

    . Refining the perfusion-diffusion mismatch hypothesis. Stroke 2005;36:1153–59

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
20. 20.↵
    1. Sobesky J,
    2. Zaro Weber O,
    3. Lehnhardt FG,
    4. et al.

    Does the mismatch match the penumbra? Magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography in early ischemic stroke. Stroke 2005;36:980–85

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
21. 21.↵
    1. Carpenter TK,
    2. Armitage PA,
    3. Bastin ME,
    4. et al

    . DSC perfusion MRI: quantification and reduction of systematic errors arising in areas of reduced cerebral blood flow. Magn Reson Med 2006;55:1342–49

    CrossRefPubMed