Kevin Moulin1,2,3, Pierre Croisille4,5, Magalie Viallon4,5, Ilya A Verzhbinsky6, Luigi E Perotti7, and Daniel B Ennis1,2,3
1Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States, 2Department of Radiology, Veterans Administration Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA, United States, 3Cardiovascular Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States, 4University of Lyon, UJM-Saint-Etienne, INSA, CNRS UMR 5520, INSERM U1206, CREATIS, F-42023, Saint-Etienne, France, 5Department of Radiology, University Hospital Saint-Etienne, Saint-Etienne, France, 6Medical Scientist Training Program, University of California - San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States, 7Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, United States
Synopsis
Despite the importance of myofiber strain (Eff)
to overall heart function, it has remained very difficult to measure Eff
in vivo owing to the challenges of measuring both microstructural
and functional cardiac data. We propose a new
method that integrates cDTI and a volume of short- and long-axis DENSE slices
with 2D displacement encoding to enable the measurement of in vivo Eff
in humans. The accuracy of the approach for measuring Eff was
evaluated in silico. Finally, in vivo Eff values were measured and reported for
thirty (N=30) healthy volunteers for which an average Eff=-0.14 was found.
Introduction
Cardiac function arises from the complex deformation of
billions of cardiac muscle cells (cardiomyocytes) during the cardiac cycle1.
Aggregated cardiomyocytes form so-called “myofibers” that change orientation
from epicardium to endocardium, as usually described by an helix angle (HA)2. This unique microstructural architecture transforms uniaxial myofiber
shortening into the circumferential, longitudinal, and radial deformation of
the left ventricle (LV). Despite the mechanistic importance of myofiber strain
(Eff) to heart function, it has remained very difficult to measure
in vivo owing to the challenges of acquiring and integrating both functional
motion and microstructural cardiac data, which has only been reported in a few
pre-clinical studies3-6.
Cardiac motion can be measured using the DENSE7,8 approach, which provides spatiotemporally resolved maps of myocardial tissue
displacement. However, since myofiber orientation data is typically not
available, cardiac strains are usually computed assuming a geometry dependent
cylindrical coordinate system along the longitudinal (Ell),
circumferential (Ecc), and radial (Err) directions of the
LV. These descriptive metrics are not mechanistically linked to cardiac
contraction – except in the LV midwall where it is assumed that Ecc
accords with Eff owing to the presumed circumferential orientation
of midwall myofibers.
Cardiac Diffusion Tensor imaging (cDTI) is the only
approach able to provide a direct measure of myofiber orientation in vivo9. Recently, the development of first and second-order motion-compensated
gradient waveform designs have enabled cDTI in vivo despite the inherent
respiratory and cardiac bulk motion 10-12. This approach has been used to
characterize the in vivo microstructural remodeling in several
cardiomyopathies13-15.
In this work, we propose a new method that combines cDTI
and a volume of short- and long-axis DENSE slices with 2D displacement encoding
to enable the rapid measurement of in vivo myofiber strain (Eff)
in humans. The accuracy of the approach for measuring Eff was
evaluated using a computational phantom for a range of myofiber orientations.
Finally, in vivo Eff values were measured and reported for thirty
(N=30) healthy volunteers.Methods
In this work, myofiber
strain (Eff) was estimated by retrospective combination of cDTI and
DENSE images. Eff
estimation (Animated Fig. 1) consisted of three steps: 1) 3D displacements were
estimated by combining LA and SA 2D DENSE data; 2) The 3D displacement field
was applied to the cDTI data to compute the myofiber orientation through the
cardiac cycle; and 3) Eff was calculated at each cardiac phase
(beginning of systole was the reference configuration).
An in
silico experiment was designed to validate the accuracy of the proposed
cDTI and DENSE pipeline to estimate Eff. A computational deforming LV
phantom was used to produce a cardiac-like displacement field given strain targets
on Ell (-0.15), Ecc (-0.20 in endo, -0.16 in epi), Err
(0.45 in endo, 0.30 in epi), and Eff (-0.15) strains. The phantom
includes a quadratic transmural distribution of myofiber HA (37° in endo, -9°
in mid-wall, -45° in epi)16. Finally, perturbation was added to the HA to
study the variability of Eff as a function of the myofiber
orientation.
Healthy volunteers (N=30) were imaged
(3T Prisma, Siemens) following IRB approval and informed consent. Six cine
DENSE slices were acquired in short axis (SA) and long axis (LA) views during
breath holding using 2D displacement encoding (ke=0.1 cycle/mm,
balanced 3-point encoding, TE=1ms, TR=15ms, 2.5x2.5x8mm3). The cDTI
acquisitions were performed at peak systole (~275ms) in a single mid-SA using a
second order motion compensated high-resolution spin-echo EPI cardiac sequence
(TE=61ms, TR=4000ms, 1.6x1.6x8mm3, end-respiratory triggering, b-values
0-350s/mm², 6 directions, 10 averages). The acquisition time for all data was
~10 min in total.
Differences between median Ecc
and Eff across volunteers were evaluated using a Wilcoxon rank test
(p<0.05).Results
For the computational phantom, strains
values from synthetic DENSE images and transmural HA from synthetic cDTI images
are given in Figure 2-A-C. After combining cDTI and DENSE images, Eff
value was estimated to Eff=-0.14[-0.15;-0.13] at peak systole. Variability
was then added to the myofiber orientation maps which resulted in an increase
of the interquartile range (IQR) for the transmural HA distribution (Figure 3).
Small variations of HA corresponded to tight range of Eff at peak
systole. As the variance of the HA increased (HA=19.6[-3.4;38.2]°, -29.2[-48.6;-8.15]°
at endo and epi), so did the spread of Eff with a positive bias (Eff=-0.14[-0.18;-0.06]).
Cardiac strains by DENSE acquisitions
and transmural HA measured across the thirty volunteers are shown in Figure 4. A
comparison Eff and Ecc is given in Figure 5. At peak
systole, Eff was smaller in magnitude than Ecc in the
endo-layer (Eff=-0.14[-0.15;-0.12] vs Ecc=-0.18[-0.20;-0.16],
p<0.001) and in the mid-layer (Eff=-0.14[-0.16;-0.12] vs Ecc=-0.16[-0.17;-0.13],
p<0.001) and equivalent in
the epi-layer (Eff=-0.14[-0.16;-0.12] vs Ecc=-0.14[-0.15;-0.11],
p=0.002). Transmurally, Eff is uniform while a transmural gradient
is evident for Ecc and statistical differences were found in the epi-
and endo-layers (Figure 5-C).Discussions and Conclusion
In this
study, we computed in vivo myofiber strains (Eff) in humans
for the first time using DENSE and cDTI all within an ~10min scan. Eff
was seen to be more spatially uniform suggesting uniform cardiomyocyte
shortening in healthy adults and less geometry and layer dependence. Eff
is a more mechanistic biomarker candidate to study cardiac function in health
and disease.
Acknowledgements
This work was
supported by NIH/NHLBI R01-HL131975, R01-HL131823, K25-HL135408 grants and AHA
post-doctoral fellowship AHA-20POST35210644. This work was supported by
the HCL Actions Incitatives (69HCL15_744), and performed within the framework
of the RHU MARVELOUS (ANR-16-RHUS-0009) of l’Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1
(UCBL), within the program "Investissements d'Avenir“ operated by the
French National Research Agency (ANR).
The authors thank SIEMENS healthineers for their
technical support and Dr. Epstein (University of Virginia) for providing the
DENSE sequence used in this study.
References
1.
Axel L et al. J. Cardiovasc. Magn. Reson. 2014;16 doi:
10.1186/s12968-014-0089-6.
2.
Streeter et al. Circ. Res.
1969;24:339–347 doi: 10.1161/01.RES.24.3.339.
3.
Tseng et al. Radiology 2000. Doi: 10.1148/radiology.216.1.r00jn39128.
4.
Wang et al. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 2016. Doi: 10.1109/TMI.2016.2580573.
5.
Perotti et al. Functional Imaging and Modelling of the Heart. Springer
International Publishing; 2017. pp. 381–391.
6.
Verzhbinsky et al. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 2019. Doi: In Press.
7.
Aletras et al. J. Magn. Reson. 1999. Doi: 10.1006/jmre.1998.1676.
8.
Zhong et al. Magn. Reson. Med. 2010. Doi: 10.1002/mrm.22503.
9.
Lombaert et al. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 2012. Doi: 10.1109/TMI.2012.2192743.
10.
Welsh et al. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 2015. Doi: 10.1109/TMI.2015.2411571.
11.
Stoeck et al. MRM 2016. Doi:10.1002/mrm.25784
12.
Aliotta et al. Magn. Reson. Med. 2017. Doi: 10.1002/mrm.26166.
13.
Nielles-Vallespin et al. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2017. Doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.11.051.
14.
Ferreira et al. J. Cardiovasc. Magn. Reson. 2014. Doi:
10.1186/s12968-014-0087-8.
15.
Gotschy et al. J. Cardiovasc. Magn. Reson. 2019. Doi:
10.1186/s12968-019-0563-2.
16.
Ennis et al. J. Biomech. 2008. Doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2008.08.007.