Accurate cardiac synchronization is essential in CMR. At ultra-high field, ECG triggering can be significantly impacted by the magneto-hydrodynamic (MHD) effect. Here, we investigate the performance of a conventional 3-lead ECG trigger device and a state-of-the-art trigger algorithm for cardiac ECG synchronization at 7 T. We show that by appropriate subject preparation and by including a learning phase for the R-wave detection outside of the magnetic field, reliable ECG triggering at ultra-high field is feasible despite severe distortions of the ECG signal. A quantitative analysis in 10 healthy subjects revealed a trigger sensitivity and specificity of 97.6% and 98.4%, respectively.
High spatial resolution and new opportunities for MR-based tissue characterization or metabolic imaging have recently encouraged investigations into ultra-high-field (B0 ≥ 7 Tesla) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). While accurate cardiac synchronization is essential, ECG triggering at ultra-high field can be significantly impacted by the magneto-hydrodynamic (MHD) effect. Blood flow within the static magnetic field induces a voltage, which superimposes the ECG signal and can affect the recognition of the R-wave. Scaling with B0, the effect is particularly pronounced at ultra-high field (1-3).
The purpose of this study was to fully explore the technical capabilities of a 7 T research MR scanner and state-of-the-art 3-lead ECG equipment for cardiac synchronization at ultra-high field. We demonstrate that by including an appropriate ECG learning phase outside of the magnetic field, existing ECG trigger technology in 7 T research systems allows for generating stable and reliable ECG trigger signals in healthy volunteers.
CMR examinations were performed in 10 healthy volunteers on a non-commercial 7 T whole-body research MRI scanner (Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany) under institutional review board permission. The system was equipped with a 3-lead ECG trigger device (Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany) and a state-of-the-art trigger algorithm (4-5) for cardiac synchronization. An 8-channel Tx/32-channel Rx cardiac array (MRI Tools GmbH, Berlin, Germany), operated in single-channel transmit mode, was used for RF transmission and signal reception.
To ensure accurate triggering, ECG electrodes were placed following the manufacturer’s instructions, and in conjunction with a senior electrophysiology cardiac scientist. The trigger algorithm was calibrated by observing the subject’s ECG outside the magnet for approximately 30s (1,6). This learning phase allows the trigger algorithm to store the shape of the rising edge of the R-wave without the presence of the MHD effect. Once learning is completed, the trigger algorithm continuously compares the incoming ECG signal to the learned shape in real-time and initiates trigger events based on several conditions (4).
Cine CMR was performed after 3rd-order B0 shimming using a high-resolution breath-held ECG-retro-gated segmented two-dimensional spoiled gradient echo sequence with the following acquisition parameters: field of view (FOV) = 360 x 270 mm², matrix = 352 x 264, slice thickness = 6.0 mm, echo time (TE) = 3.13, repetition time (TR) = 6.1 ms, receiver bandwidth (BWRX) = 592 Hz/px, flip angle = 60 deg, phases = 20, temporal resolution = 64 ms, parallel imaging (GRAPPA, R = 3). To assess the performance of the underlying trigger setup, ECG trigger signals and trigger events were recorded. Vectorcardiograms were generated and analyzed qualitatively.
To obtain a quantitative estimate, false negative (unidentified R-wave) and false positive (trigger not identifying an R-wave) trigger events were identified manually in the ECG recordings. From each subject, a representative continuous section of the ECG signal containing up to 500 trigger events was included in the evaluation. From the results, sensitivity and specificity were calculated as follows:
Sensitivity = (NRR – NFN) / NRR,
Specificity = (NRR – NFP) / NRR,
with NRR, NFP and NFP denoting the number of RR-intervals, false negatives and false positives, respectively.
1.
Suttie, NMR Biomed 2012;25:27–34.
2.
Frauenrath, J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2010;12:67.
3.
Krug, J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2013;15:W19.
4.
Frank, US patent application 20100191134 A1. July 2010.
5.
Knesewitsch, J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2013;15:3.
6. Stäb, Tomography 2016;2:167-174.