Synopsis
Incorrect
assessment of clinical volume status leads to increased mortality and
healthcare costs yet there are no accurate, non-invasive, and quantitative
methods to assess this health metric. We evaluated the ability of a portable NMR sensor and relaxometry techniques to detect fluid
changes in hemodialysis (HD) patients during the course of HD
treatment. There was a significant difference between relaxation values of HD patients compared to healthy subjects. Background
Clinical
volume status is closely tied to mortality in patients with heart, liver, and kidney
disease
1. Existing methods to determine volume status are imprecise,
invasive, and/or easily confounded
2,3. Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) relaxometry – the
measurement of relaxation variables – is a non-invasive technique that measures
in vivo fluid compartments and can
quantitatively measure fluid shifts
4–7. Hemodialysis (HD) patients are well suited for volume
status studies because they regularly have large amounts of fluid removed with
dialysis. We aimed to evaluate the ability of portable NMR sensors to detect
fluid changes in HD patients during the course of a single HD treatment. We
also compared baseline NMR results between our HD subjects and a sample of
healthy controls.
Methods
HD
patients (25+ years old, BMI 18.5-40, no amputations or metal implants) undergoing
routine HD at the Massachusetts General Hospital were eligible for participation. Patients
had serial NMR measurements taken of their finger during dialysis treatment.
Weight change, fluid removal volume, vital signs and dialysis machine settings
were recorded. A previously enrolled cohort of healthy subjects who had NMR
measurements taken with the same device while undergoing aerobic exercise was
used as a comparison group.
NMR Sensor: A custom NMR sensor based off a circular Halbach array magnet design was built
for index finger measurements (B0=0.55T, 770mm3 cylindrical
voxel; Figure 1). It utilized a CPMG sequence to measure the T2
relaxation time of the entire fingertip with 8,000 echoes and TE = 300ms.
MRI: T2-mapping was
performed on the fingers (healthy pilot: n=1, age=24) using a 3T whole-body Siemens
MR scanner with a wrist coil. The T2 maps of 6 slices with TR=5.0s and 32 echo
times (TE1st scan=8ms, TE2nd scan= 25.5ms) and a
resolution of 1x1x5mm (128 x 64 matrix) were acquired in 5.5 min per scan. Regions
of interest (ROIs) were drawn on the MRI images to calculate the T2
relaxation time contributions of specific tissues.
Analysis: Multi-exponential fittings on the T2 decays of
both sensor (5-exponential fit) and MRI (2-exponential fit) data were performed
using the curve fitting toolbox in Matlab.
Results
The
21 HD patients who participated had a mean age of 65 ± 13 years (
Figure 2). The mean
ultrafiltration volume per dialysis session was 2267.1 ± 988.2mL. The 20 healthy
volunteers had a mean age of 25 ± 2 years. Finger relaxation times in HD
patients at the start of dialysis were significantly higher than those of
healthy controls (T
2,E: 428.6 ± 65.3 vs 327.7 ± 22.7ms; p<0.00001;
Figure 3). There was a decrease in the
HD patients’ finger relaxation times at the end compared to the beginning of
treatment (T
2,E: 413.7 ± 56.9ms vs. 380.1 ± 59.4ms; p =
0.1). The four T2 relaxation time components measured by the MRI
(n=1) corresponded to four of the five relaxation components measured by the
finger NMR sensor for the same subject (T
2,B= 21.7 ± 11.7 vs 15.4 ± 0.9ms; T
2,C=
47.9 ± 7.6 vs 45.2 ± 1.9ms; T
2,D= 150.8 ± 29.4 vs 122.5 ± 6.1ms; T
2,E=
635.2 ± 68.7 vs 325.9 ± 7.3ms;
Figure 4).
Discussion and
Conclusion
Finger
relaxation times of volume-overloaded HD patients were significantly higher (differenceE = 100.9ms, p<0.00001) than those of healthy controls. The increased
relaxation times for HD patients compared to healthy subjects suggests a
portable NMR device can distinguish between normal versus volume-overload status
with a <10 minute finger measurement. Relaxation time may correlate with
volume removal in real time, though additional enrollment is needed to confirm
this finding. Modeling to understand how age, gender, BMI, medications, and fluid kinetics
affect NMR readings is necessary. Age difference between the HD and healthy groups
is a limitation of this study. Measurements with age-matched healthy subjects will
be performed in the future.
MRI
results validated the multi-exponential fitting of the NMR finger sensor data
by yielding similar values and elucidating which tissues contribute to which
relaxation time compartments. Our phantom studies on the MRI and NMR finger sensor show that T2
dependence on B0 is very limited
for relaxation times <300ms (not shown). The highest relaxation time (~300ms)
in the finger originates from marrow. The T2 decay for the bone marrow ROI in
the MRI data was not fully relaxed and therefore had a bad fitting. This is
likely why the MRI relaxation E value is significantly different from the
finger sensor’s relaxation E value. Relaxation components B-D match between the MRI and finger sensor within
their confidence interval.
Portable NMR sensors and relaxometry techniques are a
promising approach to quantitatively assess a person’s volume status.
Acknowledgements
This
work was supported by the MGH-MIT Strategic Partnership Grand Challenges Grant (Diagnostics
Round), the Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies (W911NF-13-D-0001), and the
Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research (P30-CA14051, NCI). The authors
thank the MGH Hemodialysis Unit as well as Dr. Martin
Torriani and the MGH Metabolic Imaging Core for their assistance. References
1. US Renal Data System, “Chapter 3: Morbidity and
mortality in patients with CKD,” in USRDS 2013 Annual Report: Atlas of
Chronic Kidney Disease and End-Stage Renal Disease in the United States,
Bethesda, MD, 2013, pp. 63–72.
2. W.
Frank Peacock and K. M. Soto, “Current technique of fluid status assessment.,” Congest.
Hear. Fail., Supplement, pp. S45–51, Aug. 2010.
3. R.
Carter, S. N. Cheuvront, M. A. Kolka, and M. N. Sawka, “Hydration Status
Monitoring,” in Monitoring Metabolic Status: Predicting Decrements in
Physiological and Cognitive Performance, Washington, D.C.: The National
Academies Press, 2004, pp. 270–280.
4. M.
Li, C. C. Vassiliou, L. A. Colucci, and M. J. Cima, “1H nuclear
magnetic resonance (NMR) as a tool to measure dehydration in mice,” NMR
Biomed., vol. 28, no. 8, pp. 1031–1039, 2015.
5. K.
J. Hackney, S. B. Cook, T. J. Fairchild, and L. L. Ploutz-Snyder, “Skeletal
muscle volume following dehydration induced by exercise in heat,” Extrem.
Physiol. Med., vol. 1, no. 1, p. 3, Jan. 2012.
6. B.
Kunnecke, P. Verry, A. Benardeau, and M. von Kienlin, “Quantitative Body
Composition Analysis in Relaxometry,” vol. 12, no. 10, 2004.
7. M.
Bruvold, J. G. Seland, H. Brurok, and P. Jynge, “Dynamic water changes in excised
rat myocardium assessed by continuous distribution of T1 and T2,” Magn.
Reson. Med., vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 442–7, Sep. 2007.