Stephen G Jermy1,2, Ali Alhamud1,2, Ian H Burger1, Ntobeko A B Ntusi3, and Ernesta M Meintjes1,2
1Division of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Human Biology, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa, 2Cape Universities Body Imaging Centre (CUBIC), University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa, 3Department of Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
Synopsis
Navigated free-breathing techniques are commonly
used during cardiovascular MR (CMR) acquisitions when breath-holding techniques
are not a viable option. Navigated free-breathing techniques with acceptance
windows suffer from much longer scan times.
A control system using an adaptive Kalman filter was developed to
continuously update the slice position throughout the imaging segment during
free-breathing CMR, allowing the acquisition to continue throughout the
respiratory cycle, regardless of diaphragm position, thereby improving
respiratory efficiency and reducing scan times.
Introduction
Respiratory motion of the heart poses a challenge
for high resolution CMR imaging. Breath-holding to compensate for respiratory
motion, limits scan times, and as such signal-to-noise ratio and resolution.1 Several free breathing techniques have been proposed to monitor and correct for
respiratory motion in real time using navigators.2 Diaphragmatic
navigator gating with an acceptance window is commonly used but the technique
has a low respiratory efficiency which is further compromised by respiratory
drift. Prospective slice following has been implemented to enable larger gating
windows and increased respiratory efficiency. This technique uses the navigator
position immediately prior to the imaging segment to determine the slice
position to be used during the segment. The slice following becomes less
accurate as the duration of the imaging segment increases due to the navigator
data becoming more temporally outdated.2 In this work, we have
implemented a prospective motion correction control system technique based on
an adaptive Kalman filter, in a TRUFI sequence, to continuously update the
slice position throughout the imaging segment.3Methods
The TRUFI sequence was modified to allow multiple
90°/180° navigators to be run prior to the imaging segment (Figure 1). The data
from the navigators are used by the control
system as the input of a predictor estimator, the output of which predicts the
position of the diaphragm throughout the imaging segment when no navigator data
are available.3 Phantom and in
vivo scans were performed on a 3T Siemens Skyra (Siemens AG, Erlangen). A
pineapple and water phantom were imaged with a 32-channel head coil on a moving
rig while undergoing simulated breathing (Figure 2). The rig could be moved in
the superior-inferior direction to simulate tidal breathing. Acquisitions were
performed using three sequences: an ECG-triggered TRUFI sequence, a
navigated TRUFI sequence with a ±3mm
acceptance window, and the modified navigated TRUFI sequence with the
prospective motion correction control system. The scanning protocol was as
follows for all the sequences: TR/TE=200/2.27ms, effective TR of 1000ms due
to ECG gating; 70° flip angle; 256×256 matrix size; slice
thickness=5mm; 24 segments per TR; 1 slice; GRAPPA 2. All slices were
positioned axially. The navigator was placed over the interface
between the pineapple and the water phantom which when moved would simulate the
motion of a diaphragm. The peak-to-peak amplitude of the oscillation was 15mm
and the frequency of the oscillation was approximately 0.2Hz, a normal adult
respiratory rate.4 A healthy volunteer was then imaged with an 18-channel flex coil and a 32-channel spine array coil using the same
sequences as previously described.Results
Figure 3
shows the results of the acquisitions on the pineapple-water phantom. In Figure
3b the image quality is badly degraded and most of the detail of the pineapple
has been lost due to motion artefacts. In Figure 3c the image quality is
greatly improved due to the use of the acceptance window which discards data
acquired when the diaphragm is not within a specific range. Figure 3d shows the
same amount of motion as in Figure 3c, however the acceptance window is set to
have a 100% acceptance rate and the motion is prospectively corrected using the
control system. Scanning times for Figures 3c and 3d were 22 and 8 effective
TRs, respectively. Images acquired from a healthy volunteer using the ±3mm
acceptance window (Figure 4a) and the control system to prospectively correct
the breathing motion (Figure 4b) demonstrate similar image quality.Discussion
For the phantom scans, the prospective motion
correction control system shows improvement over the uncorrected image, and
similar image quality to the acceptance windowed acquisition, in a scan time
that is 64% shorter than that of the latter. Many structures that were lost
during the uncorrected acquisition are regained by use of the control system
and ghosting artefacts present in both the uncorrected and acceptance windowed
acquisitions are reduced. However, finer details that are visible in the
stationary acquisition, especially the core of the pineapple, are poorly
visualised in all other acquisitions. In
vivo images acquired using the acceptance window and prospective motion
correction control system both showed motion artefacts caused by breathing.
Figure 5 shows the navigator trace produced by the prospective motion control
system, showing that 100% respiratory efficiency was achieved.Conclusion
The prospective
motion correction control system demonstrates significant improvement over the
uncorrected acquisition, and similar image quality to the acquisition with a
±3mm acceptance window, a commonly used window size in CMR. Furthermore, the
scan time of the prospective motion corrected acquisition was reduced by almost
a factor of three when compared with the acceptance windowed acquisition.Acknowledgements
This study was funded by the South African Research Chairs Initiative of the Department of Science and Technology and National Research Foundation of South AfricaReferences
1. Holland, A. E., Goldfarb, J. W., &
Edelman, R. R. (1998). Diaphragmatic and cardiac motion during suspended
breathing: preliminary experience and implications for breath-hold MR imaging. Radiology,
209(2), 483–489.
2. Sachs, T.
S., Meyer, C. H., Hu, B. S., et al. (1994). Real-time motion detection in
spiral MRI using navigators. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 32(5),
639–45.
3. Burger, I. H., Keegan, J., Meintjes, E., et
al. Prospective diaphragm position prediction for Cardiac MR using multiple navigators.
Proc ISMRM-ESMRMB 18, ISSN# 1545-4428, Stockholm, Sweden, 1-7 May 2010.
(#5013).
4. Lindh, W.
Q., Pooler, M., Tamparo, C. D., et al. (2009). Vital Signs and Measurements. In
Delmar’s Comprehensive Medical Assissting: Administrative and Clinical
Competencies (4th ed., pp. 563–569).