Jiayu Sun1, Simeng Wang1, Robert O'Connor2, David Muccigrosso3, Yucheng Chen4, Wei Cheng1, Charles Hildebolt3, Fabao Gao1, and Jie Zheng3
1Radiology, West Hospital, Chengdu, China, People's Republic of, 2NIH, Bethesda, MD, United States, 3Radiology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, United States, 4Cardiology, West Hospital, Chengdu, China, People's Republic of
Synopsis
The purpose is to develop and evaluate a non-contrast CMR approach for sensitive and
quantitative assessment of myocardial fibrosis. Ten patients with
cardiomyopathy were scanned with and without contrast injection. A quantitative
fibrosis index derived from native T1ρ dispersion contrast was obtained and compared
with extracellular volume calculated by T1 mapping. A strong correlation was
shown between two indexes and superior sensitivity was observed for fibrosis index to
detect myocardial diffuse fibrosis.Objective
Cardiac fibrosis is one of the hallmarks of
pathological left ventricular (LV) remodeling,
1 which plays a significant role in the myocardial
response to injury. Excessive cardiac fibrosis leads to progression of heart
failure.
2 The objective of
this study is to develop and evaluate a non-contrast cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) approach for sensitive
and quantitative assessment of excessive myocardial fibrosis.
Methods
Theory
According to two-site
chemical exchange model, the spin-locking relaxation time T1ρ (ω1) can
be expressed for an on-resonance spin-locking module at a spin-locking frequency of ω1:3
$$$R1\rho({\omega_{1}})=R_{2,0}+func({\omega_{1}},[collagen])$$$ (1)
Where: R2,0 is an intrinsic
transverse relaxation rate of water spins without chemical exchange
contributions, which is assumed to be a constant for all ω1 ; func is a function of site populations (free water and water bound to collagen), mean exchange rate at the two sites; and chemical shifts between two
sites.
$$$R1\rho(0)-R1\rho(\omega_{1})=\triangle func(\omega_{1},[collagen])$$$ (2)
Myocardial fibrosis index (mFI) can be defined as
$$$mFI(\omega_{1})=T1(\omega_{1})-T1(0)=\frac{\triangle func \times T1\rho(0)}{1-\triangle func\times T1\rho(0)}\times T1\rho(0)$$$ (3)
Where
$$$\triangle func \times T1\rho(0)$$$ is a function of myocardial fibrosis content and
can be defined as pseudo ECV or pECV. Its value is between 0 and 1.
CMR
in Patients
Ten patients with a
variety of cardiomyopathy without obstructive coronary artery stenosis were
prospectively scanned with and without administration of contrast media. CMR
included non-contrast spin-locking T1ρ based imaging
at two different spin-locking frequencies, native and post-contrast T1 mapping,
as well as late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) imaging. A single dose of
gadolinium contrast agent (0.1 mmol/kg, Magnevist, Schering) was administrated
for contrast enhancement study. Three slices were obtained for each
measurement. All Cardiac MR studies were performed on a Siemens 3T Trio System
(Siemens Medical Solution, Malvern, PA) using an 8-element phased-array coil as
the receiver.
Data Analysis
The mFI maps, native and post-contrast T1 maps,
and ECV maps were all created using custom-made software. A standardized AHA
16-segment model was applied to for image analysis. The mFI maps was derived
from the T1ρ dispersion data. The pECV values
were calculated from T1ρ (0) and mFI using Eq. (3) on the myocardial
segment basis. This index was compared with extracellular volume (ECV),
calculated from native and post-contrast T1, for diffuse fibrosis detection. All
correlations were determined by Pearson’s correlation coefficient.
Results
For
all myocardial segments free of artifacts, the correlation plots between ECV
and 4 image contrasts, i.e., mFI, pECV, native T1, and post-contrast T1, are
shown in
Figure 1. A strong correlation between mFI and ECV was observed at
r = 0.73, followed by moderate
correlation for pECV and native T1, and a weak correlation for post-contrast
T1. One a patient basis, excellent correlations were observed between ECV and
mFI or pECV (
Figure 2).
Figure 3
demonstrates image examples obtained from the patient with alcoholic
cardiomyopathy. One interesting observation was that the edema areas shown in
the ECV map in the anterior and inferolateral regions were not seen in the
corresponding mFI map. With increased diffuse fibrosis content, the change in
the mFI exhibited up to 31 folds higher than changes in other non-contrast imaging
parameters (native T1 and T1ρ).
Discussion
This study introduced a new
myocardial fibrosis index or mFI without the use of an exogenous contrast
agent. The examinations in patients with non-ischemia cardiomyopathy revealed a
strong correlation between the mFI and ECV, an established imaging marker for
diffuse myocardial fibrosis. In comparison with other fibrosis imaging indices,
such as native and post-contrast T1, the mFI demonstrated superior sensitivity.
The method for the improved sensitivity is based
on T1ρ
dispersion contrast, rather than absolute T1ρ contrast. For normal myocardial tissue, the T1ρ
dispersion contrast between two SLFs should be relatively small.4
For myocardial tissue with excessive fibrosis, T1ρ dispersion contrast is
expected to increase with fibrosis content and reach much higher intensity in
the area with densely packed collagen, i..e, scar tissue. In comparison with
native or post-contrast T1, this relatively higher sensitivity in mFI may be
attributed by removing the nearly constant R2,0, a parameter approximately 10-15 folds higher
than mFI. This results in substantial higher sensitivity to detect
chemical-exchange dominant T1ρ dispersion signals.5
Conclusion
This
study is for the first time to introduce a non-contrast fibrosis index for the
detection of myocardial fibrosis. This may have important implications for diagnosis
and management of cardiac patients with cardiomyopathy and heart failure, particularly
in those who have impaired renal function and/or need frequent surveillance for
medical treatments.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge funding support in part from a grant 2012FZ0075,
Key Technology Research and Development Program of the Science & Technology
Department, Sichuan, China, to support this work.References
1. Mann
DL, Barger PM, Burkhoff D. Myocardial recovery and the failing heart: myth,
magic, or molecular target? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:2465-2472.
2. Brown
RD, Ambler SK, Mitchell MD, Long CS. The cardiac fibroblast: therapeutic target
in myocardial remodeling and failure. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol
2005;45:657–687.
3. Trott
O, Palmer AG 3rd. R1rho relaxation outside of the fast-exchange limit. J Magn
Reson. 2002;154:157- 160.
4. Witschey
WR, Pilla JJ, Ferrari G, Koomalsingh K, Haris M, Hinmon R, Zsido G, Gorman JH
3rd, Gorman RC, Reddy R. Rotating frame spin lattice relaxation in a swine
model of chronic, left ventricular myocardial infarction. Magn Reson Med. 2010;
64:1453-1460.
5. Mäkelä
HI, Gröhn OH, Kettunen MI, Kauppinen RA. Proton exchange as a relaxation
mechanism for T1 in the rotating frame in native and immobilized protein
solutions. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2001; 289:813-818.