Application of a combined IVIM-DTI model in ECG-triggered imaging of the human kidney
Fabian Hilbert1, Simon Veldhoen1, Tobias Wech1, Henning Neubauer1, Thorsten Alexander Bley1, and Herbert Köstler1

1Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany

Synopsis

Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) accounts for anisotropy of diffusion, while the intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) model considers a fast moving pseudo-diffusion compartment. In the kidney DTI and IVIM parameters vary significantly depending on the time they are acquired within the cardiac cycle. A combined IVIM-DTI model incorporates anisotropic diffusion and anisotropic pseudo-diffusion parameters. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of the cardiac cycle on the combined IVIM-DTI model. While in DTI the fractional anisotropy of the diffusion tensor (FAD) varies within the cardiac cycle, FAD does not change in the IVIM-DTI model.

Purpose

While Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) identifies anisotropic diffusion by use of a mono-exponential model, IntraVoxel Incoherent Motion (IVIM) accounts for two motion compartments, pseudo-diffusion and diffusion. However, the IVIM model does not take into account anisotropy, although it has been reported that pseudo-diffusion in the human kidney is anisotropic1. A combined IVIM-DTI model that contains a diffusion tensor and a pseudo-diffusion fraction tensor has proven to perform well2. Both renal DTI and renal IVIM showed significant dependence of their parameters on the cardiac cycle3,4. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of the cardiac cycle on the combined IVIM-DTI model.

Methods

Thirteen heathy volunteers were included in the study. Images were acquired at 3 T (Magnetom Prisma, Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany). ECG triggering was applied. Coronal images of the kidney were acquired twice, once during systolic peak blood flow (trigger delay 200ms) and once during low blood flow (trigger delay $$$\geq$$$400ms).

The diffusion-weighted EPI sequence used the following parameters: Field of view $$$400\times400$$$ mm2; matrix $$$208\times208$$$; partial Fourier 5/8; slice thickness 4 mm; minimum TR 3.000 ms; TE 87 ms; b-values 0,200,250,700,750,800 s/mm2; diffusion directions 30; averages 2. All diffusion weighted images were used for analyses with the standard DTI model and the IVIM-DTI model.

For standard DTI analysis the signal was fitted to the equation

$$S(b) = S_{0}e^{-b\mathbf{D}},$$

where $$$S_{0}$$$ is the signal without diffusion weighting and $$$\mathbf{D}$$$ denotes the diffusion tensor.

The IVIM-DTI model combines the diffusion tensor $$$\mathbf{D}$$$ and the pseudo-diffusion fraction $$$f$$$. Furthermore, not only $$$\mathbf{D}$$$ is considered to be a tensor, but also $$$\mathbf{f}$$$ is described as a tensor. A more thorough explanation of this model was presented before2. We assume that the fast motion regime contributes negligibly to the signal for b $$$\geq200$$$ s/mm2. Hence, for the IVIM-DTI analysis the signal was fitted to

$$S(b) = S_{0}(1-\mathbf{f})e^{-b\mathbf{D}}$$

Image analysis

Mean diffusivity MD and fractional anisotropy of the $$$\mathbf{D}$$$-tensor FAD, as well as mean pseudo-diffusion fraction Mf and fractional anisotropy of the $$$\mathbf{f}$$$-tensor FAf where determined in renal cortex and medulla. The results were tested for statistical significant differences between peak flow and low flow using Wilcoxon’s signed rank test. MD and FAD where also tested for differences between the DTI and IVIM-DTI model. $$$P<0.05$$$ was considered statistically significant.

Results

Figure 1 lists MD and Mf for peak flow and low flow. DTI yields significantly higher cortical MD during peak flow compared to low flow ($$$P<0.01$$$). There is no significant difference between peak and low flow in cortical MD when applying the IVIM-DTI model. Yet, cortical Mf is higher during peak flow compared to low flow ($$$P<0.001$$$).

For both cortex and medulla MD is significantly lower in the IVIM-DTI model compared to DTI at both times.

Figure 2 shows FAD and FAf for peak and low flow.

FAD as determined by DTI is significantly different in the medulla for peak and low flow ($$$P<0.01$$$). In contrast, medullary FAD is not significantly different when using the IVIM-DTI model. Instead, medullary FAf is significantly lower during peak flow compared to low flow. The cortex did not reveal significant differences of FAD and FAf between the two time points.

Figure 3 shows a T2-weighted image, as well as MD, FAD , MF and FAf maps of one kidney during low flow (a,b,c,d,e) and peak flow (f,g,h,i,k). The FAf map appears less noisy during peak flow.

Discussion

The results show that when using the DTI model, the time of acquisition within the cardiac cycle significantly affects MD and FAD. This is in agreement with previously reported findings3,4.

We found that the time-dependence of MD and FAD is extinguished when using the IVIM-DTI model. High cortical MD during peak flow in the DTI model relates to high Mf in the IVIM-DTI model. Low medullary FAD during peak flow relates to low FAf in the IVIM-DTI model. FAD is lower when using IVIM-DTI compared to DTI, because part of the anisotropy is covered by the $$$\mathbf{f}$$$-tensor.

In voxels with very low Mf the value for FAf might be increased due to noise. However, this would hardly cause a difference between the DTI and the IVIM-DTI model, since a low Mf value will have little impact on MD and FAD.

Conclusion

The time-dependence of MD and FAD using the DTI was assumed to be caused by pseudo-diffusion. The IVIM-DTI model allows accounting for pseudo-diffusion. Our findings confirm that in the IVIM-DTI model the pseudo-diffusion related parameters Mf and FAf depend on the cardiac cycle, while the diffusion related parameters MD and FAD appear constant.

Acknowledgements

FH acknowledges the Cusanuswerk for a scholarship.

References

1. Notohamiprodjo M, Chandarana H, Mikheev A, et al. Combined IVIM and DTI for simultaneous assessment of diffusion and flow anisotropy of the kidney. In: Proc Intl Soc Mag Reson Med Vol 20; 2012; p. 110.

2. Hilbert F, Veldhoen S, Wech T, et al. Perfusion fraction tensor imaging of the kidney. In: Proc Intl Soc Mag Reson Med Vol 23; 2015; p. 2862.

3. Heusch P, Wittsack HJ, Kröpil P, et al. Impact of blood flow on diffusion coefficients of the human kidney: a time-resolved ECG-triggered diffusion-tensor imaging (DTI) study at 3T. J Magn Reson imaging 2013;37:233–6.

4. Wittsack HJ, Lanzman RS, Quentin M, et al. Temporally Resolved Electrocardiogram-Triggered Diffusion-Weighted Imaging of the Human Kidney. Invest Radiol 2012;47:226–30.

Figures

Figure 1

Mean diffusivity MD and mean pseudo-diffusion fraction Mf for renal cortex and medulla, obtained from DTI and IVIM-DTI analysis. P describes the difference of the same parameter between low flow and peak flow. P<0.05 is considered statistically significant (n.s. = not significant).


Figure 2

Fractional anisotropy of the D-tensor (FAD) and fractional anisotropy of the f-tensor (FAf) during peak flow (filled circles) and low flow (hollow circles). Values obtained from DTI are printed in blue, whereas values obtained from IVIM-DTI are printed in green.


Figure 3

a,f) T2-weighted images of a kidney without diffusion weighting

b,g) DTI: Mean diffusivity [mm2/s]

c,h) DTI: Fractional anisotropy of D-tensor

d,i) IVIM-DTI: Mean pseudo-diffusion fraction

e,k) IVIM-DTI: Fractional anisotropy of f-tensor

Images were taken at low flow (a,b,c,d,e) and peak flow (f,g,h,i,k)



Proc. Intl. Soc. Mag. Reson. Med. 24 (2016)
2039