Synopsis
Mutli-nuclear lung MRI using
inhaled inert fluorinated 19F gas and 1H
provide complementary structural-functional information. The close MR resonance
frequencies of the two nuclei preclude the use of dual-tuned coils using trap
circuits. Thus, we introduce the use of Micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS)
in a quadrature transmit-receive RF coil to switch between two resonance
frequencies of 19F and 1H at 1.5T. Characterization of the additional loss and
co-registered imaging of 19F and 1H with a custom-built body sized phantom is
demonstrated.Background
Multi-nuclear MRI of an inhaled inert gases such as
3He,
129Xe
and
19F alongside anatomical
1H imaging provides
complementary functional and structural information of the lung for quantitative
clinical diagnosis
1,2. Fluorinated gases
have the advantage of being relatively cheap and do not require an
optical-pumping polarizer. Multi-tuned RF coils for
3He-
129Xe-
1H
for lung imaging have been demonstrated previously using passive trap circuits
3,4. The close resonance
frequencies of
19F and
1H (60.06 MHz and 68.83 MHz at
1.5T) make passive/active traps infeasible. A potential solution is by active
switching the RF coil between the two resonances
5-7.
Purpose
In this study we investigate using Micro-electromechanical
systems (MEMS) to switch a transmit-receive coil between the
1H
and
19F Larmor frequencies. The MEMS (GE Healthcare coils, Aurora,
OH, USA) have suitable standoff voltage, isolation impedance and switching time for use in the MRI8 and to actively switch between resonances
9. The RF coil was constructed in-house and the electrical
design is described along with the characterization of equivalent series
resistance (ESR) of the MEMS and associated noise/loss factor.
Methods
Two surface-coil loops of
dimension 36 cm $$$\times$$$ 24 cm were designed to operate as a quadrature
transmit-receive pair specifically sized for lung imaging as shown in Figure
1. Coils were isolated using a
capacitive decoupling network
10. The coil topology and matching equation
is shown in Figure 1, where
$$$Z_m$$$ is
the matched input impedance, $$$Z_{coil}$$$ is the coil input impedance and $$${C_{m1}}, {L_{m2}}, {C_{m3}}$$$ and $$${C_{m4}}$$$ are matching elements. An
external DC power supply was used to switch the MEMS. The coil is tuned
to
1H and $$${C_{m4}}$$$ is isolated
(off) when the MEMS is open, and tuned to
19F coils when MEMS is
closed (short). In a separate experiment, ESR was found by measuring the quality
(Q) factor of a resonant loop (15 cm ×15 cm)
coil with and without MEMS.
A phantom to emulate the human
lungs (tissue and air space) was developed for multi-nuclear imaging made up of
an outer container filled with 3.6g/ℓ NaCl and 1.96g/ℓ CuSO
4⋅5H
2O solution
and an inner container (8 L) filled with perfluoropropane as shown in Figure
2. RF choke inductors (3.9 nH) were
introduced at the MEMS control board and 0.7 m away to prevent induced RF
currents.
19F imaging
is performed with the following imaging parameters: fast gradient echo sequence,
matrix = 32$$$\times$$$32, TR=100, TE=1.6, BW=8.06 kHz, FOV=48 cm, slice thickness=100 mm and
5 averages (scan time of 16 s). Pixel intensity $$$\rho_{x,y}$$$ at
each voxel volume ($$$\triangle$$$V) location
(x,y) in the slice is given by
11,
$$\rho_{x,y}=\alpha\triangle{V{B_1^-}_{x,y}}{\omega_{0}}{M_{0}}\sin(2\pi\gamma\tau{B_1^+}_{x,y})$$
where $$$\alpha$$$ is
a constant representing system gain, $$$\gamma$$$ is
the gyromagnetic ratio, $$$\tau$$$ is
the pulse width, $$$M_0$$$ is
the longitudinal magnetization and $$${B_1^+}_{x,y}/{B_1^-}_{x,y}$$$ are the transmit and receive sensitivities. The
transmitted RF power (peak) was varied linearly from 193 W to 580 W and measured
values were fitted to estimate the flip angle, $$$\phi=2\pi\gamma\tau{B_1^+}_{x,y}$$$ with specified power
12. Co-registered
1H
imaging was performed with a gradient echo sequence. The Imaging
parameters were: TR=200, TE=20, flip angle= 70
, BW=15.63 kHz, FOV=48 cm, slice
thickness=20 mm, matrix = 256$$$\times$$$256 and 1 average. The imaging parameters of the
19F
superimposed fast gradient echo sequence image were: TR=15, TE=1.9, BW=8.06
KHz, FOV=48 cm, slice thickness=100 mm, matrix = 64$$$\times$$$64 and 150 averages.
Results
The measured Q factors of the resonant coil are
shown in Table 1. The MEMS inherent impedance was 0.41 Ω + 6.6
nH. $$$Z_{coil}$$$ was 21.8-2.3j Ω and
29.6+30.2j Ω at 60.1 MHz and 63.8 MHz respectively.
The circuit values used to satisfy matching are $$$C_{m1}=68 pF,L_{m2}=90 nH ,C_{m3}=10 pF,C_{m4}=68 pF$$$. The calculated noise factor
13 increased from 1.012 to
1.017 when the MEMS ESR was added, assuming capacitors ($$$C_{m1},C_{m3},C_{m4}$$$)
and
inductor ($$$L_{m2}$$$) have Q
factors of 1000 and 100, respectively. The matching and isolation of the coils
with MEMS switched on and off are shown in Figure 3.
19F flip angle measurement (contours)
superimposed on a
19F image for
= 387 W is
shown in Figure 4(a). The
19F image superimposed on
co-registered
1H image is shown in Figure 4(b).
Discussion and Conclusion
Although ESR for MEMS is similar to PIN diodes (0.2 Ω
6), MEMS power consumption is
much lower. We have successful demonstrated MEMS are sufficiently robust to switch between
multi-nuclear MR imaging of
19F fluorinated gas and
1H using
routine imaging sequences. Also, using sample loading
dominated transmit-receive dual tuned RF coils the increased loss from the introduced
MEMS ESR at frequencies > 60 MHz was negligible. Future studies will evaluate
the MEMs in this coil design for human lung imaging.
Acknowledgements
Daniel
Spence (GE Healthcare, Inc.), Michael Czigler (GE Healthcare, Inc.), Marco Aimi
(GE Global Research) for providing guidance and support.
This work was funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), National Institute for health research (NIHR), Medical Research Council (MRC), General Electric (GE) Healthcare and University of Sheffield Hyperpolarised Imaging Group - POLARIS. The views expressed in this abstract are those of the author and not necessarily those of EPSRC, NHS, NIHR, MRC or the Department of Health.
References
(1) Wild, J. M.; Ajraoui, S.; Deppe, M.
H.; Parnell, S. R.; Marshall, H.; Parra-Robles, J.; Ireland, R. H. Synchronous
acquisition of hyperpolarised 3He and 1H MR images of the lungs – maximising
mutual anatomical and functional information. NMR in Biomedicine 2011,
24, 130-134.
(2) Wild, J. M.; Marshall, H.; Xu, X.;
Norquay, G.; Parnell, S. R.; Clemence, M.; Griffiths, P. D.; Parra-Robles, J.
Simultaneous Imaging of Lung Structure and Function with Triple-Nuclear Hybrid
MR Imaging. Radiology 2013, 267, 251-255.
(3) Rao, M.; Robb, F.; Wild, J. M.
Dedicated receiver array coil for 1H lung imaging with same-breath acquisition
of hyperpolarized 3He and 129Xe gas. Magnetic
Resonance in Medicine 2015, 74, 291-299.
(4) Rao, M.; Wild, J. M. RF
instrumentation for same-breath triple nuclear lung MR imaging of 1H and
hyperpolarized 3He and 129Xe at 1.5T. Magnetic
Resonance in Medicine 2015,
n/a-n/a.
(5) Muftuler, L. T.; Gulsen, G.; Sezen, K.
D.; Nalcioglu, O. Automatic Tuned MRI RF Coil for Multinuclear Imaging of Small
Animals at 3T. Journal of Magnetic
Resonance 2002, 155, 39-44.
(6) Seunghoon, H.; Mark, J. H.; Orhan, N.;
Muftuler, L. T. A PIN diode controlled dual-tuned MRI RF coil and phased array
for multi nuclear imaging. Physics in
Medicine and Biology 2010, 55, 2589.
(7) Bulumulla, S. B.; Iannotti, J. A.;
Fiveland, E. W.; Robb, F. Multi-nuclear receiving coils for magnetic resonance
imaging (mri). US Patent.
(8) Spence, D.; Aimi, M. Custom MEMS
Switch for MR Surface Coil decoupling. Proc.
Intl. Soc. Mag. Reson. Med. 2015,
23, 704.
(9) Bulumulla, S. B.; Fiveland, E.; Park,
K.; Iannotti, J. MEMS Reconfigurable Coils. Proc.
Intl. Soc. Mag. Reson. Med. 2015,
23, 1797.
(10) Maunder, A. M.; Daneshmand, M.; Mousavi,
P.; Fallone, B. G.; De Zanche, N. Stray Capacitance Between Magnetic Resonance
Imaging Coil Elements: Models and Application to Array Decoupling. Microwave Theory and Techniques, IEEE
Transactions on 2013, 61, 4667-4677.
(11) Liang, Z.; Lauterbur, P.: Principles of Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A
Signal Processing Perspective; Wiley-IEEE Press, 2000.
(12) Hornak, J. P.; Szumowski, J.; Bryant, R.
G. Magnetic field mapping. Magnetic
Resonance in Medicine 1988, 6, 158-163.
(13) Maunder,
A.; Fallone, B. G.; Daneshmand, M.; De Zanche, N. Experimental verification of
SNR and parallel imaging improvements using composite arrays. NMR in Biomedicine 2015, 28, 141-153.