A Method for Imaging the Ischemic Penumbra with MRI Using Intravoxel Incoherent Motion

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Rehani B,
   2. Ammanuel SG,
   3. Zhang Y, et al

   . A new era of extended time window acute stroke interventions guided by imaging. Neurohospitalist 2020;10:29–37 doi:10.1177/1941874419870701 pmid:31839862

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   1. Fransen PSS,
   2. Beumer D,
   3. Berkhemer OA

   ; MR CLEAN Investigators, et al. MR CLEAN, a multicenter randomized clinical trial of endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke in the Netherlands: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2014;15:343 doi:10.1186/1745-6215-15-343 pmid:25179366

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   1. Goyal M,
   2. Jadhav AP,
   3. Bonafe A

   ; SWIFT PRIME Investigators, et al. Analysis of workflow and time to treatment and the effects on outcome in endovascular treatment of acute ischemic stroke: results from the SWIFT PRIME randomized controlled trial. Radiology 2016;279:888–97 doi:10.1148/radiol.2016160204 pmid:27092472

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Nogueira RG,
   2. Jadhav AP,
   3. Haussen DC

   ; DAWN Trial Investigators, et al. Thrombectomy 6 to 24 hours after stroke with a mismatch between deficit and infarct. N Engl J Med 2018;378:11–21 doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1706442 pmid:29129157

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   1. Olivot J-M,
   2. Mlynash M,
   3. Thijs VN, et al

   . Relationships between cerebral perfusion and reversibility of acute diffusion lesions in DEFUSE. Stroke 2009;40:1692–97 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.108.538082 pmid:19299632

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
6. 6.↵
   1. Albers GW,
   2. Marks MP,
   3. Kemp S

   ; DEFUSE 3 Investigators, et al. Thrombectomy for stroke at 6 to 16 hours with selection by perfusion imaging. N Engl J Med 2018;378:708–18 doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1713973 pmid:29364767

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Lansberg MG,
   2. Cereda CW,
   3. Mlynash M

   ; Diffusion and Perfusion Imaging Evaluation for Understanding Stroke Evolution 2 (DEFUSE 2) Study Investigators, et al. Response to endovascular reperfusion is not time-dependent in patients with salvageable tissue. Neurology 2015;85:708–14 doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000001853 pmid:26224727

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Heiss W-D,
   2. Zaro-Weber O

   . Extension of therapeutic window in ischemic stroke by selective mismatch imaging. Int J Stroke 2019;14:351–58 doi:10.1177/1747493019840936 pmid:30935350

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Leigh R,
   2. Knutsson L,
   3. Zhou J, et al

   . Imaging the physiological evolution of the ischemic penumbra in acute ischemic stroke. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 2018;38:1500–16 doi:10.1177/0271678X17700913 pmid:28345479

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    1. Demeestere J,
    2. Wouters A,
    3. Christensen S, et al

    . Review of perfusion imaging in acute ischemic Stroke. Stroke 2020;51:1017–24 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.119.028337 pmid:32008460

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    1. Christoforidis GA,
    2. Saadat N,
    3. Liu M, et al

    . Effect of early sanguinate (PEGylated carboxyhemoglobin bovine) infusion on cerebral blood flow to the ischemic core in experimental middle cerebral artery occlusion. J Neurointerv Surg 2022;14:1253–57 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2021-018239 pmid:34907008

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
12. 12.↵
    1. Shazeeb MS,
    2. King RM,
    3. Anagnostakou V, et al

    . Novel oxygen carrier slows infarct growth in large vessel occlusion dog model based on magnetic resonance imaging analysis. Stroke 2022;53:1363–72 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.121.036896 pmid:35306836

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. Liu M,
    2. Saadat N,
    3. Jeong YI, et al

    . Augmentation of perfusion with simultaneous vasodilator and inotropic agents in experimental acute middle cerebral artery occlusion: a pilot study. J Neurointerv Surg 2023;15:e69–75 doi:10.1136/jnis-2022-018990 pmid:35803730

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
14. 14.↵
    1. Lansberg MG,
    2. Thijs VN,
    3. Hamilton S

    ; DEFUSE Investigators, et al. Evaluation of the clinical–diffusion and perfusion–diffusion mismatch models in DEFUSE. Stroke 2007;38:1826–30 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.106.480145 pmid:17495217

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
15. 15.↵
    1. Ribo M,
    2. Flores A,
    3. Rubiera M, et al

    . Extending the time window for endovascular procedures according to collateral pial circulation. Stroke 2011;42:3465–69 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.623827 pmid:21960574

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
16. 16.↵
    1. Christoforidis GA,
    2. Vakil P,
    3. Ansari SA, et al

    . Impact of pial collaterals on infarct growth rate in experimental acute ischemic stroke. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2017;38:270–75 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5003 pmid:27856435

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
17. 17.↵
    1. Maguida G,
    2. Shuaib A

    . Collateral circulation in ischemic stroke: an updated review. J Stroke 2023;25:179–98 doi:10.5853/jos.2022.02936 pmid:36907186

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    1. Liu MM,
    2. Saadat N,
    3. Roth SP, et al

    . Quantification of collateral supply with local-AIF dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI predicts infarct growth. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2025;46:251–58 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A8441 pmid:39134367

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
19. 19.↵
    1. Federau C,
    2. Wintermark M,
    3. Christensen S, et al

    . Collateral blood flow measurement with intravoxel incoherent motion perfusion imaging in hyperacute brain stroke. Neurology 2019;92:e2462–71 doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000007538 pmid:31019105

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
20. 20.↵
    1. Wu O,
    2. Østergaard L,
    3. Koroshetz WJ, et al

    . Effects of tracer arrival time on flow estimates in MR perfusion‐weighted imaging. Magn Reson Med 2003;50:856–64 doi:10.1002/mrm.10610 pmid:14523973

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    1. Jeong YI,
    2. Christoforidis GA,
    3. Saadat N, et al

    . Absolute quantitative MR perfusion and comparison against stable‐isotope microspheres. Magn Reson Med 2019;81:3567–77

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    1. Mouannes-Srour JJ,
    2. Shin W,
    3. Ansari SA, et al

    . Correction for arterial-tissue delay and dispersion in absolute quantitative cerebral perfusion DSC MR imaging. Magn Reson Med 2012;68:495–506 doi:10.1002/mrm.23257 pmid:22162092

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    1. Le Bihan D,
    2. Breton E,
    3. Lallemand D, et al

    . Separation of diffusion and perfusion in intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging. Radiology 1988;168:497–505 doi:10.1148/radiology.168.2.3393671 pmid:3393671

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
24. 24.↵
    1. Liu M,
    2. Saadat N,
    3. Jeong Y, et al

    . Quantitative perfusion and water transport time model from multi b-value diffusion magnetic resonance imaging validated against neutron capture microspheres. J Med Imag (Bellingham) 2023;10:063501 doi:10.1117/1.JMI.10.6.063501

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    1. Christoforidis GA,
    2. Rink C,
    3. Kontzialis MS, et al

    . An endovascular canine middle cerebral artery occlusion model for the study of leptomeningeal collateral recruitment. Invest Radiology 2011;46:34–40 doi:10.1097/RLI.0b013e3181f0cbc7 pmid:20856126

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    1. Christoforidis GA,
    2. Mohammad Y,
    3. Kehagias D, et al

    . Angiographic assessment of pial collaterals as a prognostic indicator following intra-arterial thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005;26:1789–97 pmid:16091531

    PubMedWeb of Science
27. 27.↵
    1. Saadat N,
    2. Christoforidis GA,
    3. Jeong YI, et al

    . Influence of simultaneous pressor and vasodilatory agents on the evolution of infarct growth in experimental acute middle cerebral artery occlusion. J Neurointerv Surg 2021;13:741–45 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2020-016539 pmid:32900906

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
28. 28.↵
    1. Sakaie KE,
    2. Shin W,
    3. Curtin KR, et al

    . Method for improving the accuracy of quantitative cerebral perfusion imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2005;21:512–19 doi:10.1002/jmri.20305 pmid:15834910

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.↵
    1. Vakil P,
    2. Lee JJ,
    3. Mouannes-Srour JJ, et al

    . Cerebrovascular occlusive disease: quantitative cerebral blood flow using dynamic susceptibility contrast MR imaging correlates with quantitative H2[15O] PET. Radiology 2013;266:879–86 doi:10.1148/radiol.12120756 pmid:23297337

    CrossRefPubMed
30. 30.↵
    1. Carroll TJ,
    2. Horowitz S,
    3. Shin W, et al

    . Quantification of cerebral perfusion using the “bookend technique”: an evaluation in CNS tumors. Magn Reson Imaging 2008;26:1352–59 doi:10.1016/j.MRI.2008.04.010 pmid:18538523

    CrossRefPubMed
31. 31.↵
    1. Carroll TJ,
    2. Rowley HA,
    3. Haughton VM

    . Automatic calculation of the arterial input function for cerebral perfusion imaging with MR imaging. Radiology 2003;227:593–600 doi:10.1148/radiol.2272020092 pmid:12663823

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
32. 32.↵
    1. Shin W,
    2. Cashen TA,
    3. Horowitz SW, et al

    . Quantitative CBV measurement from static T1 changes in tissue and correction for intravascular water exchange. Magn Reson Med 2006;56:138–45 doi:10.1002/mrm.20937 pmid:16767742

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    1. Shin W,
    2. Horowitz S,
    3. Ragin A, et al

    . Quantitative cerebral perfusion using dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI: evaluation of reproducibility and age- and gender-dependence with fully automatic image postprocessing algorithm. Magn Reson Med 2007;58:1232–41 doi:10.1002/mrm.21420 pmid:17969025

    CrossRefPubMed
34. 34.↵
    1. Shah MK,
    2. Shin W,
    3. Parikh VS, et al

    . Quantitative cerebral MR perfusion imaging: preliminary results in stroke. J Magn Reson Imaging 2010;32:796–802 doi:10.1002/jmri.22302 pmid:20882609

    CrossRefPubMed
35. 35.↵
    1. Wirestam R,
    2. Borg M,
    3. Brockstedt S, et al

    . Perfusion-related parameters in intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging compared with CBV and CBF measured by dynamic susceptibility-contrast MR technique. Acta Radiology 2001;42:123–28 doi:10.1080/028418501127346459 pmid:11281143

    CrossRefPubMed
36. 36.↵
    1. Federau C,
    2. Maeder P,
    3. O’Brien K, et al

    . Quantitative measurement of brain perfusion with intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging. Radiology 2012;265:874–81 doi:10.1148/radiol.12120584 pmid:23074258

    CrossRefPubMed
37. 37.↵
    1. Federau C,
    2. O’Brien K

    . Increased brain perfusion contrast with T2‐prepared intravoxel incoherent motion (T2prep IVIM) MRI. NMR Biomed 2015;28:9–16 doi:10.1002/nbm.3223 pmid:25303668

    CrossRefPubMed
38. 38.↵
    1. Federau C,
    2. Sumer S,
    3. Becce F, et al

    . Intravoxel incoherent motion perfusion imaging in acute stroke: initial clinical experience. Neuroradiology 2014;56:629–35 doi:10.1007/s00234-014-1370-y pmid:24838807

    CrossRefPubMed
39. 39.↵
    1. Federau C,
    2. O’Brien K,
    3. Meuli R, et al

    . Measuring brain perfusion with intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM): initial clinical experience. J Magn Reson Imaging 2014;39:624–32 doi:10.1002/jmri.24195 pmid:24068649

    CrossRefPubMed
40. 40.↵
    1. Liu M,
    2. Warioba C,
    3. Bertini J, et al

    . Validation and machine learning of a new method for quantifying CBF with IVIM. American Society of Neuroradiology Annual Meeting; Chicago, IL. April 29-May 3, 2023
41. 41.↵
    1. Zhu G,
    2. Federau C,
    3. Wintermark M, et al

    . Comparison of MRI IVIM and MR perfusion imaging in acute ischemic stroke due to large vessel occlusion. Int J Stroke 2020;15:332–42 doi:10.1177/1747493019873515 pmid:31480940

    CrossRefPubMed
42. 42.↵
    1. Shazeeb MS,
    2. Sotak CH

    . Limitations in biexponential fitting of NMR inversion-recovery curves. J Magn Reson 2017;276:14–21 doi:10.1016/j.jmr.2017.01.003 pmid:28088651

    CrossRefPubMed
43. 43.↵
    1. Federau C,
    2. O’Brien K,
    3. Birbaumer A, et al

    . Functional mapping of the human visual cortex with intravoxel incoherent motion MRI. Plos One 2015;10:e0117706. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0117706 pmid:25647423

    CrossRefPubMed
44. 44.↵
    1. Nael K,
    2. Doshi A,
    3. De Leacy R, et al

    . MR perfusion to determine the status of collaterals in patients with acute ischemic stroke: a look beyond time maps. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2018;39:219–25 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5454 pmid:29217747

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
45. 45.↵
    1. Hwang YH,
    2. Kang DH,
    3. Kim YW, et al

    . Impact of time-to-reperfusion on outcome in patients with poor collaterals. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:495–500 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4151 pmid:25376808

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
46. 46.↵
    1. Kim SJ,
    2. Seok JM,
    3. Bang OY, et al

    . MR mismatch profiles in patients with intracranial atherosclerotic stroke: a comprehensive approach comparing stroke subtypes. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 2009;29:1138–45 doi:10.1038/jcbfm.2009.38 pmid:19367294

    CrossRefPubMed
47. 47.↵
    1. Warioba C,
    2. Liu M,
    3. Penano S, et al

    . Efficacy assessment of cerebral perfusion augmentation through functional connectivity in an acute canine stroke model. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2024;45:1214–19 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A8320

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
48. 48.↵
    1. King RM,
    2. Anagnostakou V,
    3. Shazeeb MS, et al

    . Selective brain cooling with a novel catheter reduces infarct growth after recanalization in a canine large vessel occlusion model. Interv Neuroradiol 2024 Jul 23 [Epub ahead of print] doi:10.1177/15910199241266010

    CrossRef
49. 49.↵
    1. Wu WC,
    2. Chen YF,
    3. Tseng HM, et al

    . Caveat of measuring perfusion indexes using intravoxel incoherent motion magnetic resonance imaging in the human brain. Eur Radiology 2015;25:2485–92 doi:10.1007/s00330-015-3655-x pmid:25693668

    CrossRefPubMed
50. 50.↵
    1. Zimmermann J,
    2. Reolon B,
    3. Michels L, et al

    . Intravoxel incoherent motion imaging in stroke infarct core and penumbra is related to long-term clinical outcome. Sci Rep 2024;14:29631 doi:10.1038/s41598-024-81280-7 pmid:39609507

    CrossRefPubMed