Ladislav Valkovič1,2, William T Clarke1, Benoit Schaller1, Lucian A B Purvis1, Stefan Neubauer1, Ivan Frollo2, Matthew D Robson1, and Christopher T Rodgers1
1Oxford Centre for Clinical Magnetic Resonance Research, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom, 2Department of Imaging Methods, Institute of Measurement Science, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava, Slovakia
Synopsis
31P-MRS
is of particular interest in cardiovascular medicine, as the PCr/ATP ratio can serve
as a predictor of mortality. However, due to inherently low signal-to-noise
ratio (SNR), cardiac 31P-MRS is not yet practical in the clinic. To increase
SNR, the use of 7T and dedicated receive arrays has been proposed. However, the
peak B1+ was inadequate for the use of B1
insensitive pulses, thus far. In this study, we demonstrate the feasibility of homogeneous
adiabatic excitation for cardiac 31P-MRS using a novel quadrature 31P
transceiver at 7T. This constitutes an important step towards absolute
quantification of cardiac metabolites at 7T.Introduction
Phosphorus
MR spectroscopy (31P-MRS) is a valuable technique for non-invasive
measurement of high-energy metabolites, e.g. adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and
phosphocreatine (PCr) that allows assessment of tissue energy metabolism in
vivo. 31P-MRS is of particular interest in cardiovascular medicine, as
the PCr/ATP ratio in the heart changes in most major disease states and can serve
as a predictor of mortality1,2. However, due to inherently low
signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), cardiac 31P-MRS is not yet practical in
the clinic. To increase SNR, the use of ultra-high fields (e.g., 7T) has been
proposed3. Further improvement in SNR, as well as in heart coverage was
recently demonstrated using a dedicated receive array4. However, the
peak B1+ of the array coil was deemed inadequate for the
use of B1 insensitive excitation pulses and homogeneous 90° excitation
of the whole heart would constitute a significant improvement and provide an
important step towards absolute quantification.
Therefore,
our aim was to test the feasibility of adiabatic excitation for cardiac 31P-MRS
using a novel quadrature 31P transceiver at 7T.
Materials and Methods
All
measurements were performed on a 7T MR system (Siemens) equipped with a dual-tuned
Tx/Rx quadrature RF-coil, comprising a purpose-built quadrature 31P
coil (two 15cm loops, with overlap decoupling) and a single 1H loop
(10cm in diameter). The coil design and
safety tests are described in detail in a different abstract.
Coil
performance was tested using a two-compartment phantom, which consists of an
18L chamber filled with 73mM NaCl(aq) and a 2cm cube, filled with KH2PO4(aq),
fixed at a 10cm depth,
simulating a position within the heart. Fully-relaxed non-localized FIDs were
acquired using a 10ms long adiabatic half passage (AHP) excitation pulse,
optimized for low B1+ and SAR requirements using Bloch
simulations (Figure 1). The transmitter voltage was increased from 50V to 450V
in 25V steps, with additional repetitions between 350V and 450V.
Five
healthy volunteers (3M/2F) were recruited, in compliance with local regulations,
and were examined lying supine with the quadrature coil positioned over their
heart. To test the adiabatic excitation in vivo, two cardiac 3D 31P
UTE-CSI5 scans with AHP excitation were acquired in each volunteer. First,
at a transmit voltage giving 100% predicted SAR (i.e., ~445V) and then at 50V less
(to test whether we had exceeded the adiabatic threshold). Because of SAR
restrictions, relatively long TR (4000ms) was mandatory. Therefore, to keep the
acquisition time below 32min, and to keep skeletal muscle contamination to
minimum, the spatial resolution in sagittal direction was sacrificed, yielding
a matrix size of 8x16x8 (RLxAPxHF) with a FOV of 240x240x200mm3.
The
fitted phantom spectral amplitudes were compared to identify a range of
voltages giving 90° excitation at the depth of the heart. The in vivo
data were fitted using a Matlab implementation of AMARES6 and
corrected for T1 relaxation3. Twelve voxels with SNR>7
were selected from the heart in each volunteer for PCr/ATP quantification and
comparison of the two acquisitions by a Bland-Altman analysis of agreement7
to demonstrate that the adiabatic onset has been achieved in vivo.
Results and Discussion
Figure
2 depicts the signal amplitudes of KH2PO4(aq) acquired in
the phantom at different transmit voltages, normalized to the amplitude at the maximum
voltage. The amplitude increases steadily and then plateaus, indicating that an
adiabatic 90° excitation
is achieved from 350V upwards at a 10cm depth from the coil.
In
vivo, a sample spectrum and PCr/ATP map (Figure 3) demonstrate low
contamination of the heart voxels by the signal from the chest muscles and the
consistent ratio across the heart is further evidence for a homogeneous excitation
flip angle throughout the sensitive volume of the coil. The PCr/ATP ratios
calculated for every volunteer from each UTE-CSI acquisition are given in Table
1. All individualized ratios, from both measurements, as well as the mean value
of 1.89±0.36 are in good agreement with literature values on healthy volunteers1-3.
Comparing the two UTE-CSI acquisitions for all 60 selected voxels by a
Bland-Altman analysis of agreement (Figure 4), a mean bias of -0.03 could be
identified. This bias represents higher repeatability than the previously
reported inter-scan repeatability at 3T (-0.07)8, which supports our
phantom data and indicates that we have exceeded the adiabatic onset in the
heart in vivo.
Conclusion
This
proof-of-concept study demonstrates that a 15cm quadrature pair can provide
sufficient B
1+ across the heart for adiabatic excitation
in vivo. This work paves the way for the first human studies with absolute
quantification of cardiac metabolites at 7T.
Acknowledgements
Funded by a Sir Henry Dale Fellowship from the Royal Society and the
Wellcome Trust [098436/Z/12/Z], and by the Slovak grant agency VEGA [2/0013/14].References
1.
Bottomley P, et al. Radiology 1987;165(3):703-7
2.
Neubauer S, et al. Circulation 1992;86(6):1810-8
3.
Rodgers CT, et al. Magn Reson Med 2014;72(2):304-15
4.
Rodgers CT, et al. Proc. ISMRM 2014;22:2896
5. Robson MD, et al. Magn Reson Med 2005;53(2):267-74
6.
Purvis LA, et al. Proc. ISMRM 2014;22:2885
7.
Bland JM & Altman DG. The Statistician 1983;32(3):307-17
8.
Tyler DJ, et al. NMR Biomedicine 2009;22(4):405-13