Synopsis
In vivo cardiac Intravoxel Incoherent Motion Imaging
(IVIM) is particularly challenging due to low signal-to-noise ratio, cardiac
and respiratory motion. To address the limitation, a spin-echo (SE) based
sequence employing motion-compensated diffusion gradients during cardiac
contraction was used in combination with Bayesian Shrinkage Prior (BSP) inference.
In this work, parameter maps of four volunteers (two slices) are compared to
standard segmented least squares (LSQ) regression. Bayesian inferred IVIM parameter
maps showed reduced intra-subject variation relative to LSQ. It is concluded
that the proposed method is a promising alternative to map myocardial perfusion without the need for contrast agent administration.Introduction
The concept of Intravoxel
Incoherent Motion (IVIM) (1) for
perfusion measurement in the heart has gained significant interest in recent
years (2), (3). However, low signal-to-noise
ratio, partial voluming, cardiac and respiratory motion render IVIM
acquisitions and parameter mapping of the heart very challenging.
The objective of the
present work was to implement cardiac IVIM using a second-order motion
compensated diffusion weighted spin-echo approach in conjunction with Bayesian processing
to permit perfusion and diffusion parameter mapping of the heart during cardiac
contraction.
Methods
A second-order motion compensated diffusion-weighted spin-echo EPI
sequence (Figure 1) (4) was implemented on a a 1.5T
Philips Achieva system (Philips Healthcare, Best, The Netherlands) equipped
with a 5-channel cardiac receiver coil array and a gradient system delivering
80 mT/m at 100 mT/m/ms. Data from four healthy volunteers (3 female, 1 male,
age: 23.5±3.0 years, weight 63.3±8.3 kg, heart rate 69±5 beats/min) were
acquired. Two short-axis slices at mid-ventricular and apical level were
prescribed and diffusion images were obtained with following parameters:
spatial resolution: 2.5×2.5 mm2, slice thickness: 8 mm, reduced
field-of-view (FOV): 230×100 mm2, TR/TE: 2R-R/85ms, 7 signal
averages, spectral-spatial water-only excitation. Diffusion encoding was
performed using 16 optimized b-values (range: 0-880 s/mm2) (5) acquired along three
orthogonal diffusion encoding directions during cardiac contraction (50% end systole).
Each diffusion direction and b-value was acquired during respiratory navigated breath holding (acceptance
window: 5 mm).
In post-processing, affine image registration of diffusion weighted
images and averages was performed using elastix (6) to correct for residual
respiratory motion induced geometrical inconsistency. In addition, image
intensities were corrected to account for variations of the effective repetition
time TR as a result of varying heart rate. Thereupon, the signal S(b) was
fitted using the IVIM model (Equation 1):
$$S(b)=S_{0} \left[ (1-f) e^{-bD} + f e^{-bD^{*}}\right] \quad (1),$$
with reference intensity S0, diffusion encoding
strength b, diffusion coefficient D, perfusion
fraction f and pseudo-diffusion coefficient D*. For model
fitting, a Bayesian shrinkage prior (BSP) inference approach (7) was implemented to estimate
the parameters of the IVIM model. The shrinkage prior was a multivariate
Gaussian distribution of the log-transformed parameters with a Jeffrey's
hyper-prior (8) on the parameter
region-of-interest (ROI) mean μ and covariance matrix Σμ:
$$p \left( \mu, \Sigma_{\mu} \right) = |\Sigma_{\mu}|^{-1/2} \quad (2)$$
The Markov Chain
Monte Carlo implementation of Equation 2 used 2·104 samples for a burn-in phase
and 104 for the actual sampling. For comparison, a standard segmented
least squares (LSQ) fit (9) was used. Both the LSQ and the
BSP method were implemented in Matlab (The Mathworks, Natick, MA) as part of
the overall processing chain. In data analysis, the variance of D, f and D*
across the myocardium and slices was compared for BSP vs. LSQ in each subject
according to the AHA segmentation scheme (10). Mean values and ranges are
reported for the study population.
Results
Systolic
IVIM data were successfully acquired in all subjects (Figure 2). BSP processing (Table 1) resulted in reduced fluctuation of D and f maps across the myocardium when
compared to the LSQ results (Figure 3). The intra-slice variation of D, f and
D* was 0.02·10
-3 mm
2/s, 0.026, 3.19·10
-2 mm
2/s
for BSP versus 0.03·10
-3 mm
2/s, 0.041, 2.32·10
-2 mm
2/s
for LSQ (Figure 4). Mean values per sector and slice across the myocardium were
comparable (1.33·10
-3 mm
2/s, 0.095, 5.99·10
-2 mm
2/s
(BSP) vs. 1.27·10
-3 mm
2/s, 0.114, 4.18·10
-2 mm
2/s
(LSQ)). Comparing mean values of the mid-ventricular and apical slices a difference
of 0.01·10
-3 mm
2/s, 0.018, 1.19·10
-2 mm
2/s
for D, f, and D* was found across volunteers. The overall mean and standard
deviation of the perfusion fraction across all volunteers was 0.104±0.064 and 0.086±0.049 for the mid-ventricular
and apical slice, respectively.
Discussion
Second-order
motion compensated diffusion-weighted imaging in combination with Bayesian
shrinkage prior inference allows to map the perfusion fraction of the human
heart during systolic contraction. Imaging in systole reduces partial volume
effects due to a more favorable ratio of voxel size to myocardial thickness
when compared to imaging in diastole. In addition, systolic time points are
more reproducible in the presence of heart rate variations thereby improving
the consistency of the data. In combination with Bayesian processing perfusion
maps with reduced noise are obtained when compared to standard segmented least squares
fitting.
Conclusion
Bayesian Intravoxel
Incoherent Motion mapping is considered a promising approach to map myocardial
perfusion fractions without the need for contrast agent administration. Further
work is warranted to study local perfusion changes during both rest and
pharmacologically induced stress in ischemic patients.
Acknowledgements
This work is supported by VPH-DARE@IT and UK EPSRC
(EP/I018700/1).References
1. Le Bihan D, Breton E, Lallemand D,
Aubin ML, Vignaud J, Laval-Jeantet M. Separation of diffusion and perfusion in
intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging. Radiology 1988;168:497–505. doi:
10.1148/radiology.168.2.3393671.
2. Moulin K, Croisille P, Feiweier T,
Delattre BM a, Wei H, Robert B, Beuf O, Viallon M. In-vivo free-breathing DTI
& IVIM of the whole human heart using a real-time slice-followed SE-EPI
navigator-based sequence: a reproducibility study in healthy volunteers. 23rd
Annu. Meet. ISMRM 2015;3:5220.
3. Delattre BM a, Viallon M, Wei H,
Zhu YM, Feiweier T, Pai VM, Wen H, Croisille P. In vivo cardiac
diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: quantification of normal
perfusion and diffusion coefficients with intravoxel incoherent motion imaging.
Invest. Radiol. 2012;47:662–70. doi: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e31826ef901.
4. Stoeck CT, von Deuster C, Genet M,
Atkinson D, Kozerke S. Second-order motion-compensated spin echo diffusion
tensor imaging of the human heart. Magn. Reson. Med. 2015: doi: 10.1002/mrm.25784.
5. Lemke A, Stieltjes B, Schad LR,
Laun FB. Toward an optimal distribution of b values for intravoxel incoherent
motion imaging. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2011;29:766–76. doi:
10.1016/j.mri.2011.03.004.
6. Klein S, Staring M, Murphy K,
Viergever M a., Pluim JPW. Elastix: A toolbox for intensity-based medical image
registration. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 2010;29:196–205. doi:
10.1109/TMI.2009.2035616.
7. Orton MR, Collins DJ, Koh D-M,
Leach MO. Improved intravoxel incoherent motion analysis of diffusion weighted
imaging by data driven Bayesian modeling. Magn. Reson. Med. 2014;71:411–20. doi: 10.1002/mrm.24649.
8. Jeffreys H. An Invariant Form for
the Prior Probability in Estimation Problems. Proc. R. Soc. London A Math.
Phys. Eng. Sci. 1946;186:453–461.
9. Notohamiprodjo M, Chandarana H,
Mikheev A, Rusinek H, Grinstead J, Feiweier T, Raya JG, Lee VS, Sigmund EE.
Combined intravoxel incoherent motion and diffusion tensor imaging of renal
diffusion and flow anisotropy. Magn. Reson. Med. 2014;00:1–7. doi:
10.1002/mrm.25245.
10. Cerqueira MD, Weissman NJ,
Dilsizian V, Jacobs AK, Kaul S, Laskey WK, Pennell DJ, Rumberger J a., Ryan TJ,
Verani MS. Standardized Myocardial Segmentation and Nomenclature for
Tomographic Imaging of the Heart. J. Cardiovasc. Magn. Reson. 2002;4:203–210. doi:
10.1081/JCMR-120003946.