Abstract:Background Arterial spin labeling (ASL) allows non‐invasive quantification of myocardial blood flow (MBF). Double‐ECG gating (DG) ASL is more robust to heart rate variability than single‐ECG gating (SG), but its reproducibility requires further investigation. Moreover, the existence of multiple quantification models hinders its application. Frequency‐offset‐corrected‐inversion (FOCI) pulses provide sharper edge profiles than hyperbolic‐secant (HS), which could benefit myocardial ASL. Purpose To assess the performance of MBF quantification models for DG compared to SG ASL, to evaluate their reproducibility and to compare the effects of HS and FOCI pulses. Study Type Prospective. Subjects Sixteen subjects (27 ± 8 years). Field Strength/Sequence 1.5 T/DG and SG flow‐sensitive alternating inversion recovery ASL. Assessment Three models for DG MBF quantification were compared using Monte Carlo simulations and in vivo experiments. Two models used a fitting approach (one using only a single label and control image pair per fit, the other using all available image pairs), while the third model used a T1 correction approach. Slice profile simulations were conducted for HS and FOCI pulses with varying B0 and B1. Temporal signal‐to‐noise ratio (tSNR) was computed for different acquisition/quantification strategies and inversion pulses. The number of images that minimized MBF error was investigated in the model with highest tSNR. Intra and intersession reproducibility were assessed in 10 subjects. Statistical Tests Within‐subject coefficient of variation, analysis of variance. P‐value <0.05 was considered significant. Results MBF was not different across acquisition/quantification strategies (P = 0.27) nor pulses (P = 0.9). DG MBF quantification models exhibited significantly higher tSNR and superior reproducibility, particularly for the fitting model using multiple images (tSNR was 3.46 ± 2.18 in vivo and 3.32 ± 1.16 in simulations, respectively; wsCV = 16%). Reducing the number of ASL pairs to 13/15 did not increase MBF error (minimum = 0.22 mL/g/min). Data Conclusion Reproducibility of MBF was better for DG than SG acquisitions, especially when employing a fitting model. Level of Evidence 2 Technical Efficacy Stage 1

A generalized signal model for dual‐module velocity‐selective arterial spin labeling

A Generalized Signal Model for Dual-Module Velocity-Selective Arterial Spin Labeling

Rapid 3D Dynamic Arterial Spin Labeling with a Sparse Model-Based Image Reconstruction

A mathematical model for velocity‐selective arterial spin labeling

Rotated spiral RARE for high spatial and temporal resolution volumetric arterial spin labeling acquisition

Improving the Robustness of Pseudo‐continuous Arterial Spin Labeling to Off‐resonance and Pulsatile Flow Velocity

Volumetric abdominal perfusion measurement using a pseudo-randomly sampled 3D fast-spin-echo (FSE) arterial spin labeling (ASL) sequence and compressed sensing reconstruction.

Reduced B0/B1+ sensitivity in velocity‐selective inversion arterial spin labeling using adiabatic refocusing pulses

Comparison of velocity-selective arterial spin labeling schemes

Optimizing background suppression for dual‐module velocity‐selective arterial spin labeling: Without using additional background‐suppression pulses

Direct angiographic comparison of different velocity‐selective saturation, inversion, and DANTE labeling modules on cerebral arteries

Numerical approximation to the general kinetic model for ASL quantification

Exploiting Magnetic Resonance Angiography Imaging Improves Model Estimation Of Bold Signal

Robust Method for 3D Arterial Spin Labeling in Mice.

Cerebral Blood Flow Quantification Using Vessel-Encoded Arterial Spin Labeling

Pixel-wise Partial Volume Effects Correction on Arterial Spin Labeling Magnetic Resonance Images

A Combined Computational Fluid Dynamics and Arterial Spin Labeling MRI Modeling Strategy to Quantify Patient-Specific Cerebral Hemodynamics in Cerebrovascular Occlusive Disease

Model-based super-resolution reconstruction for pseudo-continuous Arterial Spin Labeling

Comparison of Myocardial Blood Flow Quantification Models for Double ECG Gating Arterial Spin Labeling MRI: Reproducibility Assessment

MVP-VSASL: measuring MicroVascular Pulsatility using Velocity-Selective Arterial Spin Labeling

Partial Volume Correction for Arterial Spin Labeling Using the Inherent Perfusion Information of Multiple Measurements