Adrianus J. Bakermans1, Chang Ho Wessel2, Paul F.C. Groot1, Erik S.G. Stroes2, and Aart J. Nederveen1
1Department of Radiology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2Department of Vascular Medicine, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands
Synopsis
Typically, dynamic MR studies of exercising
skeletal muscle are limited to measurements of only one parameter. Obtaining
multiple parameters simultaneously during a single experiment would provide
more insight into (patho-)physiology. Here, we report on interleaved
acquisitions of quantitative T2* maps for assessments of
the BOLD response, and 31P-MR spectra for measuring phosphocreatine
recovery kinetics during an exercise-recovery protocol in healthy subjects and peripheral
artery disease (PAD) patients. We demonstrate that with such interleaved
acquisitions, it is feasible to dynamically assess both tissue oxygenation as
well as muscle energy metabolism in the human calf muscle during a single
exercise session.Background
Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is mainly
caused by atherosclerosis, and is associated with an impaired blood flow and decreased
oxygen supply to distal muscle tissue. Both blood oxygenation level-dependent
(BOLD) MR imaging
1 and exercise phosphorus-31 MR spectroscopy (
31P-MRS)
2
have been used to study the effect of PAD on skeletal musculature. BOLD MRI
provides a window into blood oxygenation at tissue level, whereas
31P-MRS
measures phosphocreatine (PCr) recovery kinetics that reflect mitochondrial (dys)function
and oxygen supply. Typically, dynamic MR studies are limited to measurements of
only one parameter, whereas obtaining multiple parameters simultaneously during
a single experiment would provide more insight into pathophysiology.
3,4 The purpose of this work is to implement and test interleaved acquisitions of
quantitative T
2* maps for assessments of the BOLD
response and
31P-MR spectra for measuring PCr recovery kinetics
during a calf muscle exercise-recovery protocol.
Methods
The
study protocol was approved by the institutional review board, and participants
(PAD patients, n = 10; age-matched healthy
volunteers, n = 9) gave their written
informed consent.
Exercise MR protocol:
All experiments were conducted on a Philips Ingenia 3.0 Tesla MR system
(Philips Medical Systems, Best, The Netherlands) equipped with a linearly-polarized
31P-MR surface transmit/receive coil (∅ 14 cm, 51.8 MHz; Philips). For
shimming and proton MRI, the quadrature body coil was used (∅ 70 cm, 127.8
MHz). Subjects were positioned supine in the MR scanner, with one foot strapped
into a custom-build plantar flexion exercise device affixed to the patient table.
The 31P-MR surface coil was centered underneath the calf muscle.
Following MR planning and shimming, the dynamic MR protocol was started and
consisted of 200 scans with a multi-echo gradient-echo sequence for proton T2*
mapping (transversal; field of view: 192×192 mm; matrix: 64×64; slice thickness:
10 mm; flip angle: 15°; 15 echoes; TE: 1.11 ms + 1.8 ms/step; TR: 28 ms), and
200 pulse-acquire 31P-MRS scans (adiabatic excitation; 2048 data
points; bandwidth: 3000 Hz) in an interleaved3,5 fashion (Figure 1).
The effective repetition time, and hence the temporal resolution of both
datasets, was 3 seconds. First, 2 × 20 scans were acquired under resting
conditions, after which the subject was instructed to push the pedal at a
steady rate of 1 repetition/second under audiovisual guidance until exhaustion,
or until the increasing inorganic phosphate (Pi) peak amplitude
leveled with the decreasing PCr peak amplitude, typically after 1-3 minutes of
exercise. Measurements continued during recovery, completing the dynamic series
of 10 minutes.
Data analyses: 31P-MRS
data were analyzed as described previously.6 The PCr recovery time
constant (τPCr) was determined by fitting a mono-exponential curve to [PCr] during
recovery. From the multi-echo MR images, proton T2* maps
were calculated using Philips scanner software. Mean proton T2*
for the gastrocnemius muscle was determined in a region of interest drawn in an
image acquired at rest after rigid-body registration of consecutive images
using Elastix.7 The post-exercise BOLD response was quantified by
determining the amplitude of T2* increase relative to
end-recovery values.3
Results
Figure 2 (healthy volunteer) and Figure 3 (PAD
patient) show time curves for muscle PCr and P
i concentrations
measured with
31P-MRS at rest, during exercise and subsequent
recovery, and simultaneously acquired proton T
2* values
for the gastrocnemius muscle at rest and during recovery. The temporal
resolution of 3 seconds was sufficient to capture both the dynamics of
high-energy phosphate concentrations as well as the post-exercise BOLD
response. PCr recovery time constants were higher in PAD patients compared to
healthy controls (54 ± 14 s vs. 29 ± 8 s,
p
< 0.001). Likewise, the amplitude of the BOLD response was higher in PAD
patients (4.4 ± 2.1% vs. 2.4 ± 1.9%,
p
< 0.05). Results for all subjects are collected in Figure
4.
Discussion
In this preliminary work, we demonstrate
that with interleaved acquisitions of proton T
2* maps and
31P-MR spectra, it is feasible to dynamically assess both tissue
oxygenation as well as muscle energy metabolism in the human calf muscle during
a single exercise session. Impaired blood flow in PAD patients was reflected by an altered BOLD response to exercise in the gastrocnemius muscle, combined with a slower PCr recovery. In a cohort of patients, quantitative MR measures should
be compared with current indices of PAD severity used in the clinic, such as
the ankle-brachial index (ABI) or 6-min walk distance.
8 Such studies
will reveal whether this multiparametric approach will be practical to monitor
disease progression or effects of therapeutic interventions.
Acknowledgements
Part of this work was supported by the National
Institutes of Health (A.J.B. and A.J.N.; subcontract to NIH grant HL072011).References
1. Ledermann H-P, et al. Circulation 2006;113:2929-35.
2. Isbell DC, et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;47:2289-95.
3.
Wary C, et al. Neuromuscul Disord 2010;20:548-58.
4. Englund EK, et al. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2015;8:e002673.
5. Henningsson M, et al. Magn Reson Med 2015;73:692-6.
6. van
den Broek NMA, et al. Am
J Physiol Cell Physiol 2007;293:C228-37.
7. Klein S, et al. IEEE T Med Imaging 2010;29:196-205.
8. Kramer CM. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2015;8:e003360.