Andrew Scott1,2, Priyanka Sukumaran1,3, Pedro Ferreira1,2, Jennifer Keegan1,2, Sonia Nielles-Vallespin1,4, Dudley Pennell1,2, and David Firmin1,2
1Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Unit, Royal Brompton and Harefield Foundation NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom, 2National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom, 3Physics, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom, 4National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, National Institutes for Health, Bethesda, MD, United States
Synopsis
We have developed a mechanical phantom which replicates myocardial strain in blocks of jelly and sections of myocardial tissue. Initial results show the effects of strain during the diffusion time in diffusion tensor cardiovascular magnetic resonance using STEAM and the use of the phantom evaluating the DENSE strain measurement technique.
Background
Microstructural measures obtained by diffusion tensor
cardiovascular magnetic resonance (DT-CMR) with stimulated echo acquisition
mode (STEAM) are sensitive to myocardial strain during the diffusion time[1].
Models of this effect consider the myocardium as a jelly-like material[2],
but recent studies have questioned the applicability of these models in
anisotropic materials like the myocardium[3,4]. We have recently demonstrated
a good correspondence between porcine DT-CMR results acquired in-vivo, in-situ arrested,
ex-vivo and using histology[5].
However, differences in ventricular loading conditions between the pre-
and post-mortem studies confound comparisons. Here we design and test a
mechanical CMR compatible phantom which can be used to assess the effects of
strain on CMR data and allows a co-registered comparison of DT-CMR in myocardial
tissue with and without cyclical strain effects.Methods
A respiratory motion phantom[6] was modified
(figure 1) to cyclically compress slabs of tissue with variable motion
trajectories and amplitudes. The phantom consists of a trolley in the scanner
bore and a fixed plate. The phantom compresses a slab of tissue between the
trolley and the plate and is driven by a microstepping motor and lead screw
assembly. The metallic stepper motor and lead screw are separated from the bore
via 2.3m plastic rods. Arbitrary motion trajectories are programmed into the
microprocessor controller (Taranis, Smartdrive UK). The microprocessor was programmed to produce trapezoidal and
a more physiological sine-squared compression (figure 1), with amplitudes 4-8mm
and 1s period. Both traces included a static duration before and after the
motion. The microprocessor also provided a signal at the beginning of each
period, which was used to simulate an ECG and trigger the scanner. A jelly (Rowntrees UK) ~100x100x13mm3 and later a
section of mid-myocardial ventricular septum
(~70x50x13mm3) from a
fresh lamb heart obtained from a butcher’s shop, ventricular weight ~200g, were
used as test objects. Imaging was performed at 3T (Siemens Skyra) using a flexible
surface coil, placed on top of the test object. DT-CMR was performed using
monopolar STEAM-EPI, 6 diffusion directions and b=500smm-2, while
the phantom was static in both the relaxed and compressed positions. The
acquisition was then repeated whilst the phantom was moving cyclically, with
data acquisition triggered to compressed, relaxed and intermediate states. Compression
was transmural, along the shortest dimension of the test object and the imaging
plane was short-axis-like. Spiral cine displacement encoding with stimulate
echoes (DENSE)[7] was also acquired to measure strain in the test
objects. DT-CMR data was processed using in-house MATLAB tools[3] and parameters including mean diffusivity (MD), fractional anisotropy (FA) and tensor
mode[8] were calculated. Absolute elevation angle was calculated as a
surrogate for helix angle due to the differences in geometry between the test
object and a heart. Strain information was extracted from the DENSE data using
the DENSEanalysis tool from the University of Virginia[9,10].Results
Figure 2 shows example DT-CMR parameter maps for the jelly
and lamb septum whilst static and moving cyclically while the water molecules
diffuse. The parameter maps appear similar between the uncompressed and
compressed static states in both the jelly and the lamb heart, but demonstrate
a clear increase in FA, greater coherence in tensor mode and absolute elevation
angle in the jelly with the effects of strain. Figure 3 compares the diffusion
tensor in jelly and the sheetlet plane (1st and 2nd
eigenvectors) between equivalent static and moving acquisitions. In the jelly,
the tensor glyphs are elongated along the direction of compression and
compressed in the perpendicular direction in the data acquired during
trapezoidal motion in the uncompressed state (Figure 5A, central panel) and the
opposite is true in the moving compressed acquisition. For the lamb septum, the
glyphs rotate between the relaxed and contracted states for both the static and
dynamic acquisitions. Figure 4 shows the distortion of the diffusion tensor in
jelly caused by sine2 motion when acquired at various stages of
compression. Figure 5 shows pixel displacements and mean strain curves obtained using in the phantom and the sine2 trajectory. As the phantom is
compressed, tissue stretches in the directions perpendicular to the compression.Conclusion
We have developed a phantom able to simulate myocardial
contraction in order to directly assess the contribution of strain to DT-CMR data
acquired using STEAM. Despite the absence of active cardiomyocyte contraction
these initial results suggest that the sheetlets rotate when the myocardium is
compressed. The phantom can also be used to assess the performance of other
sequences in the presence of strain or in assessing the performance of
techniques used to measure strain and we have demonstrated initial results
using DENSE.Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Robin Hardie and the Clinical Engineering Department at the Royal Brompton Hospital for their assistance in the construction of the phantom.References
1. Reese
MRM 1995.DOI:10.1002/mrm.1910340603
2. Reese
JMR-B 1996.DOI: 10.1006/jmrb.1996.0139
3. Ferreira
JCMR 2014.DOI:10.1186/1532-429X-16-S1-P3388
4. Ferreira
MRM 2017.DOI:10.1002/mrm.26850
5. Nielles-Vallespin
JACC 2017. DOI:10.1016/j.jacc.2016.11.051
6.
Scott JMRI 2011.DOI:10.1016/j.mri.2010.11.004
7. Zhong
MRM 2010.DOI:10.1002/mrm.22503
8.
Ennis
MRM 2006. DOI:10.1002/mrm.20741
9.
Spottiswoode
MRM 2007.DOI: 10.1109/TMI.2006.884215
10. Gilliam
et al. 2016. DENSEanalysis. Retrieved from https://github.com/denseanalysis/denseanalysis