Synopsis
Magnetic
susceptibility-based methods are an emerging technique in CMR for myocardial
tissue characterization. Making use of UHF MRI, temporally resolved myocardial
T2* mapping was recently demonstrated. Since susceptibility
weighted MRI is highly dependent on main magnetic field homogeneity, B0
assessment is crucial for interpretation of results. This pioneering study
investigates B0 variation in the heart over the cardiac cycle at
7.0T and its implications for myocardial T2* mapping in a
cohort of healthy volunteers. Results show that septal macroscopic field
inhomogeneities are minor regarding their effects on T2*.
This provides encouragement for temporally resolved susceptibility-based CMR at
UHF.Purpose
Magnetic susceptibility-based
methods are emerging cardiovascular MR (CMR) techniques for myocardial tissue
characterization [1, 2].
The linear relationship between magnetic field strength and microscopic
susceptibility effects [3],
renders susceptibility weighted MRI at ultrahigh magnetic fields (B
0 ≥ 7.0T) (UHF) conceptually appealing to pursue high spatial resolution temporally resolved T
2*
mapping [1]. Since T
2* is highly
dependent on main magnetic field (B
0) homogeneity [4], meaningful interpretation of
these results requires temporally resolved B
0 assessment. Shah et
al. [5] reported temporal variation
of the main field to be negligible across the cardiac cycle at 1.5T,
but B
0 inhomogeneities are increased at UHF [3, 6].
For this reason, this pioneering study investigates B
0 variation in
the myocardium over the cardiac cycle at 7.0T and elucidates its implications
for myocardial T
2* mapping in healthy volunteers.
Methods
Three healthy volunteers were scanned using a 7.0T whole
body MR system (Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany). A 16 channel transceiver
array tailored for CMR at 7.0T was used for signal excitation/reception [7].
Volume selective B
0 shimming adjusted to the heart was applied prior
to T
2* weighted acquisitions. CINE T
2*
and B
0 mapping was carried out in mid-ventricular short axis (SAX)
views employing a segmented, cardiac gated, breath-held, multi-shot multi-echo
gradient echo technique [1] (spatial resolution=(1.4x1.4x4.0)mm
3, TE=2.04-10.20ms, ΔTE=1.02ms)
[1]. CINE four chamber views were acquired similarly
to measure the through-plane B
0 variation (TEs=3.06, 7.14ms, spatial
resolution=(2.8x2.8x4.0)mm
3). An MR stethoscope (MRI.TOOLS
GmbH, Berlin, Germany) was used for cardiac triggering. Field maps were calculated
offline in MATLAB (The Mathworks, Natick, MA) using a phase difference method [8]. The B
0 maps were
filtered using a Gaussian low-pass to reduce high frequency noise contributions
while maintaining macroscopic B
0 variations. Since susceptibility
contrast is determined by intravoxel field gradients rather than by overall
changes in B
0, it is essential to investigate the change of these gradients.
Intravoxel field gradients for mid-ventricular short axis views were calculated
based on in-plane field variations together with through-plane gradients estimated
from B
0 profiles in the septum of the CINE four chamber views. Septal
segments (8 and 9, [9]) are less prone to
susceptibility artifacts than other myocardial segments [3]
and hence commonly assessed in clinical routine. Therefore mean septal
intravoxel gradients were analyzed for all cardiac phases. Finally, the expected
T
2* variations caused by macroscopic field gradients were
estimated using an analytic approach. The post-processed data was averaged for
all volunteers, while interpolation based on R-R interval duration was used to match
cardiac phases of different volunteers.
Results
Figure 1 illustrates
B
0 field in-plane and through-plane maps of one volunteer for 6 out
of 19 phases distributed along the cardiac cycle. Through-plane B
0 gradients
(mean=0.4±0.1Hz/mm; mean temporal range (max-min)=0.9±0.2Hz/mm) estimated from
septal profiles in four chamber views (Figure 1 bottom) were small compared to
in-plane septal gradients (mean=2.3±0.5Hz/mm; mean range=0.6±0.1Hz/mm). Intravoxel
gradient maps are shown in Figure 2. Intravoxel gradients were comparable for
all cardiac segments with exception of the antero- and inferolateral segments which
showed higher values (compare Figure 2 center). End-systolic and end-diastolic
intravoxel gradients, T
2* and estimated gradient-induced ΔT
2* maps of
one volunteer are shown in Figure 3A. Figure 3B illustrates the intravoxel
gradient evolution across the cardiac cycle averaged over all volunteers and
its effect on T
2*. The mean range (max-min) of the septal
intravoxel B
0 gradients was 1.9±0.5Hz throughout the cardiac cycle, while
the mean gradient was ranging from 2.8-4.5Hz (black plot). Mean septal T
2* was found to be 16.1±1.0ms
(blue plot). The mean macroscopic gradient-induced ΔT
2* (red plot) was
estimated as -1.0±0.2ms and was varying in a range (max-min) of 1.0±0.6ms, which
is small compared to the mean range of T
2* changes found
3.8±1.2ms.
Discussion and Conclusion
This study investigated macroscopic B
0
variation in the heart with focus on the intraventricular septum over the
cardiac cycle at 7.0T and its effects on T
2* mapping. B
0
field variation was found to induce a nearly constant but minor offset in septal
T
2*. Consequently, macroscopic magnetic field variation
across the cardiac cycle can be considered to be negligible for septal T
2*
mapping. This result provides encouragement for temporally resolved
susceptibility sensitized CMR at UHF. Additionally, the T
2*
offset in each phase is small compared to their absolute value indicating that
septal T
2* mapping is reliable even at UHF. In
conclusion, macroscopic B
0 inhomogeneities and their temporal
changes in the septum were found to be minor and the feasibility of septal
dynamic T
2* mapping at 7.0 T was demonstrated.
Acknowledgements
No acknowledgement found.References
[1] Hezel et al. (2012) PLoS One 7(12):e52324.
[2] Friedrich et al. (2013) Journal of Cardiovascular
Magnetic Resonance 15(43).
[3] Meloni et al. (2014) Magn Reson Med 71(6):2224.
[4] Reeder et al. (1998) Magn Reson Med. 39(6):988.
[5] S. Shah (2009) Proc. Intl. Soc. Mag. Reson. Med.
17.
[6] Schar et al. (2010) Magn Reson Med 63(2):419.
[7] Thalhammer et al. (2012) J Magn Reson Imaging
36(4):847.
[8] Bryrant et al. (1984) Journal of Computer
Assisted Tomography 8(4):588.
[9]
Cerqueira (2002) Circulation 105(4):539