Measurement of blood–brain barrier water exchange rate using diffusion‐prepared and multi‐echo arterial spin labelling: Comparison of quantitative values and age dependence

Abstract

Water exchange rate (Kw) across the blood–brain barrier (BBB) is an important physiological parameter that may provide new insight into ageing and neurodegenerative disease. Recently, two non‐invasive arterial spin labelling (ASL) MRI methods have been developed to measure Kw, but results from the different methods have not been directly compared. Furthermore, the association of Kw with age for each method has not been investigated in a single cohort. Thirty participants (70% female, 63.8 ± 10.4 years) were scanned at 3 T with Diffusion‐Prepared ASL (DP‐ASL) and Multi‐Echo ASL (ME‐ASL) using previously implemented acquisition and analysis protocols. Grey matter Kw, cerebral blood flow (CBF) and arterial transit time (ATT) were extracted. CBF values were consistent; approximately 50 ml/min/100 g for both methods, and a strong positive correlation in CBF from both methods across participants (r = 0.82, p < 0.001). ATT was significantly different between methods (on average 147.7 ms lower when measured with DP‐ASL compared to ME‐ASL) but was positively correlated across participants (r = 0.39, p < 0.05). Significantly different Kw values of 106.6 ± 19.7 min−1 and 306.8 ± 71.7 min−1 were measured using DP‐ASL and ME‐ASL, respectively, and DP‐ASL Kw and ME‐ASL Kw were negatively correlated across participants (r = −0.46, p < 0.01). Kw measured using ME‐ASL had a significant linear relationship with age (p < 0.05). In conclusion, DP‐ASL and ME‐ASL provided estimates of Kw with significantly different quantitative values and inconsistent dependence with age. We propose future standardisation of modelling and fitting methods for DP‐ASL and ME‐ASL, to evaluate the effect on Kw quantification. Also, sensitivity and bias analyses should be performed for both approaches, to assess the effect of varying acquisition and fitting parameters. Lastly, comparison with independent measures of BBB water transport, and with physiological and clinical biomarkers known to be associated with changes in BBB permeability, are essential to validate the ASL methods, and to demonstrate their clinical utility.