Rapid Estimation of Spinal Cord Injury Severity in Rats using Double Diffusion Encoded Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy
Nathan P Skinner1,2,3, Shekar N Kurpad3,4, Brian D Schmit5, L Tugan Muftuler3, and Matthew D Budde3,4

1Biophysics Graduate Program, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, United States, 2Medical Scientist Training Program, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, United States, 3Department of Neurosurgery, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, United States, 4Clement J. Zablocki Veteran's Affairs Medical Center, Milwaukee, WI, United States, 5Department of Biomedical Engineering, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI, United States

Synopsis

Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) is frequently applied to spinal cord injury, yet suffers from poor detection of axonal integrity changes caused by conflicting extracellular processes. A double diffusion encoding (DDE) sequence was developed for the spinal cord to remove non-neuronal signal contribution by applying a strong diffusion weighting perpendicular to the spinal cord. A parallel diffusion gradient then sampled diffusivity along the spinal cord. Application in a rat model showed DDE parameters outperformed DTI in sensitivity to injury severity with substantially reduced acquisition and post-processing time. Thus, this technique shows potential for rapid, sensitive determination of spinal cord injury severity.

Purpose

Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) is a common technique for evaluating microstructural changes in spinal cord injury (SCI), but cannot adequately resolve diffusion markers of axonal integrity, the most direct marker of functional status1, from confounding changes related to edema and inflammation2. While more advanced models can isolate the axonal component3,4,5, imaging duration and post-processing requirements limit clinical feasibility. A double diffusion encoding (DDE) scheme has been devised specifically to evaluate axonal integrity following SCI while reducing scan duration and minimizing post processing. In-vivo comparison of standard DTI metrics with DDE parameters was performed in a rat model of SCI.

Methods

All diffusion data were collected using a Bruker 9.4T Biospec imaging system. DTI images were acquired with a standard PGSE sequence with gradient duration (δ) of 8.25 ms and separation (Δ) of 12.5 ms, using a 4-shot, respiratory gated EPI sequence (TR/TE = 1500/28 ms) consisting of 30 directions and 3 b-values (500, 1000, and 2000 s/mm2). Images had an in-plane resolution of 0.20 mm2 (128x128) and a slice thickness of 1.0 mm. Acquisition time was approximately 65 minutes.

DDE was implemented with two pairs of Stejskal-Tanner gradients (Fig. 1) with δ/Δ = 12/6 ms for each gradient pair. The first gradient pair (“filter”) was applied perpendicular to the spinal cord to attenuate non-neuronal tissue signal. The second diffusion weighted direction (“probe”) was aligned parallel to the spinal cord to sample axial diffusion. An EPI sequence implementation (TR/TE = 1750/51.07 ms) was performed using a b=4000 s/mm2 filter and 5 probe b-values from 0-1000 s/mm2 (20 minute acquisition). Another implementation using a Point RESolved Spectroscopy (PRESS) sequence (TR/TE = 3000/42.26 ms) was developed to acquire a single 10x10x6 mm3 voxel with a b=2000 s/mm2 filter and 9 probe b-values ranging from 0-2000 s/mm2. Acquisition time was approximately 3 minutes.

In naïve rats, DTI and DDE-EPI sequences were acquired with a quadrature Litz coil (Doty Scientific) in the cervical spinal cord (n=3). For the rat injury model, a weight drop contusion at the T10 vertebral level was performed with severe, moderate, mild, and sham (control) severities (n=14). At 48 hours post-injury, DTI and DDE-PRESS diffusion data were acquired at the lesion epicenter with a 4-channel surface coil array (Bruker).

Six DTI slices covering the extent of the DDE voxel were used to compare injury diffusion metrics. Images were motion and eddy current corrected, then DTI parameters calculated using weighted linear least squares fitting. Whole-cord regions of interest were used to obtain Fractional Anisotropy (FA), Mean Diffusivity (MD), Axial Diffusivity (AD), and Radial Diffusivity (RD) averages. For DDE data, the integral of the magnitude data was fit using a monoexponetial model to derive axial diffusivity (ADDDE) while a biexponential fit that included a slower restricted diffusion term was used to derive slow diffusivity (Dslow) and the signal fraction with this restricted diffusion (fR). Injury effect analyzed with ANOVA and regression analyses.

Results

Analysis of signal decay in tissues surrounding the spinal cord demonstrated that non-neural tissue is attenuated with a b-value >2000 s/mm2 (not shown). The filter did not significantly alter AD values in a naïve rat (Fig. 2) and showed no difference between the EPI and PRESS acquisition methods (Fig. 3).

ANOVA to detect the main injury effect showed no significance in the DTI parameters at 48 hours, while DDE-derived ADDDE and fR showed a significant effect (Fig.4). Regression analysis of injury biomechanics (Fig. 5) and functional testing (not shown) showed similar significance in DDE metrics while DTI measurements showed no significance.

Discussion

The alignment of fibers in the spinal cord allows attenuation of non-neuronal signal while preserving that of the spinal cord using a strong perpendicular diffusion weighting. By combining this with multiple parallel diffusion weightings, estimates of AD can be achieved using a reduced number of directions that in a healthy, naïve rat agree with those achieved using standard DTI methods. Furthermore, as signal of non-interest is removed, a spectroscopic readout allows a whole-cord calculation of diffusivity values without involved and subjective ROI analysis.

The closer association of DDE metrics with injury severity is thought to be related to the attenuation of extracellular fluid (edema), thus resulting in signal with a greater fraction of the axonal component. Functional analyses also show significant association with these measurements, demonstrating potential as a rapid injury assessment tool.

Conclusions

DDE applied to SCI provides a substantial decrease in acquisition time while improving the detection of injury severity in a rat model. This has potential applications for a fast determination of injury severity in preclinical or clinical applications.

Acknowledgements

This project was partially funded through the Research and Education Initiative Fund, a component of the Advancing a Healthier Wisconsin endowment at the Medical College of Wisconsin, the Craig H. Neilsen Foundation, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. NS is a member of the Medical Scientist Training Program at MCW, which is partially supported by a training grant from NIGMS T32-GM080202. Support from the Bryon Riesch Paralysis Foundation is gratefully acknowledged. We thank Sean McGarry, Kyle Stehlik, and Natasha Beucher for experimental assistance.

References

1. Medana IM, Esiri MM. Brain 2003.

2. Skinner et al. NMR Biomed 2015.

3. Fieremans et al. Am J Neuroradiol 2013.

4. Grussu et al. NeuroImage 2015.

5. Wang et al. Brain 2011.

Figures

Figure 1. Double Diffusion Encoding (DDE) pulse sequence consisting of two Stejskal-Tanner diffusion sensitizing gradients: the fixed b-value “filter” gradient applied perpendicular to the spinal cord and the variable “probe” gradient applied parallel to the spinal cord. Sequence is compatible with imaging and spectroscopic applications.

Figure 2. Double diffusion encoding (DDE) images with and without filter application (A). The filter attenuates the magnitude of the diffusion-weighted signal (Si) but preserves diffusion characteristics in white matter (WM) as seen in normalized data (B) and does not significantly alter Axial Diffusivity (ADDDE) (C).

Figure 3. Comparison of signal characteristics for imaging (EPI) and spectroscopic (PRESS) applications of the double diffusion encoding (DDE) sequence (A). No difference is seen in derived measures of axial diffusivity (ADDDE) between these two methods (B).

Figure 4. Group averages of mean diffusivity (MD), axial diffusivity (AD), radial diffusivity (RD), and fractional anisotropy (FA) from DTI (A). Axial diffusivity (ADDDE), slow diffusivity (Dslow), and restricted fraction (fR) from DDE (B). Error bars represent standard deviation. p-values derived from ANOVA with asterisks denoting significant difference from sham.

Figure 5. Regression analysis of DDE parameters of axial diffusivity (ADDDE), slow diffusivity (Dslow), and restricted fraction (fR) against spinal cord compression distance during weight drop injury, which shows significance for all DDE parameters.



Proc. Intl. Soc. Mag. Reson. Med. 24 (2016)
1086