Malte Roehl1,2, Peter D Gatehouse1,2, Pedro F Ferreira1,2, Sonya V Babu-Narayan1,2, David N Firmin1,2, Dudley J Pennell1,2, Sonia Nielles-Vallespin1,2, and Andrew D Scott1,2
1National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom, 2Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Unit, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, United Kingdom
Synopsis
We demonstrate STEAM spiral diffusion tensor cardiovascular magnetic resonance (DT-CMR) for high resolution ex-vivo imaging (1x1x2mm2) on a clinical 3T scanner. We optimized the coil combination method, diffusion weighting, number of spiral interleaves and averages. A comparison in ex-vivo porcine myocardium shows substantial improvements in image quality when using the spiral method over a single-shot STEAM EPI protocol acquired with matched duration, spatial resolution and diffusion encoding.
Introduction
Ex-vivo Diffusion Tensor Cardiac
Magnetic Resonance (DT-CMR) is a useful tool in investigating microstructure
without confounding effects or in validating in vivo methods1. A number of studies have studied large
mammalian hearts in clinical scanners, but resolution is often limited2 or sequences deviate from
those available in vivo3. Recent studies demonstrated that segmented
spiral STEAM provides high resolution in-vivo DT-CMR4. Here, we optimise interleaved STEAM spiral
acquisitions for high resolution ex-vivo DT-CMR on a clinical scanner. Methods
Single slice mid-ventricular
interleaved spiral STEAM DT-CMR was performed in a fixed porcine heart on a
clinical 3T Siemens Vida. The heart was suspended in Fomblin and imaged in a
head coil at 1x1x2mm2 resolution, 300ms diffusion time, TE=22ms,TR=1500ms,
6 diffusion directions, 20-40 interleaves/image, 4.9-9.5ms spiral duration, variable
density spirals with linearly reducing field of view 360x360-180x180mm2.
Coil sensitivity profiles, number of averages/interleaves and diffusion
weighting (b-value) were optimised.
Complex averaging was performed on matching b-values and
diffusion encoding directions. DT-CMR data was processed using an in-house
Matlab tool. Results are compared visually and via quality metrics: the standard deviation of the transverse angle
over the ventricular myocardium (TA-std, increases with poorer quality); and R2 of the transmural change in
HA (HA-R2, reduces with poorer quality)5,6
Optimal Coil Combination Method:
Coil sensitivity weighted coil
combination results in superior SNR compared to Sum of Squares (SOS) but
require the acquisition of Coil Sensitivity Maps (CSM). We compared 4
approaches (SOS, CSM acquired using: STEAM, gradient echo, and obtained directly
from imaging data). 30xb=600smm-2 and 5xb=100smm-2 to
identify the optimal strategy.
Optimise b-value:
Data was acquired with 30
averages of b=500,1000,1250,1500,2000,2500smm-2 and 5xb=100smm-2
to investigate the effect of b-value.
Optimise Averages/Interleaves:
To optimise combination of
averages and number of spiral interleaves, data was acquired with 50xb=1250smm-2
and 15xb=100smm-2 for spirals with 20-40 interleaves. For each datasets
DT-CMR results were calculated with varying averages.
Compare the Optimal Spiral Protocol to EPI:
For comparison with a STEAM EPI
method, the following optimised spiral protocol was used: 20 interleaves, 40xb=1250smm-2
and 7xb=100smm-2, CSM obtained directly from imaging data, 2hour
duration. A matched duration single-shot STEAM EPI with 1x1x2mm3
resolution, 700xb=1250smm-2 and 120xb=100smm-2,6
diffusion directions, 300ms diffusion time, TE=112ms, TR=1500ms.Results
Figure 1 shows results for the coil
combination strategies. Maps appear similar and both HA-R2 and TA-std
are similar for all techniques apart from SOS, suggesting that CSM can be
obtained from the imaging data without penalties.
Figure 2 shows results of varying
b-value. HA appears least noisy and quality metrics are best in datasets with
b=1000smm-2 and b=1250smm-2.
Figure 3 shows results of increasing
the number of spiral interleaves. An off-resonance artefact caused by air or
thrombus (Figure 3.A) decreases in size with increasing interleaves (shorter
spiral interleaves), but there is little change in the associated HA or quality
metrics.
Figure 4 shows the results of maintaining acquisition
duration while varying the number of interleaves and averages. Visually, HA
maps appear smoother with more averages (higher SNR) and a decreasing number of
interleaves and quality metrics are improved.
Figure 5 compares results from the EPI and spiral acquisitions
for a matched 2hour scan. The results from the EPI appear noisy relative to the
spiral acquisition.Discussion
We have demonstrated that an
interleaved spiral STEAM sequence is able to provide high resolution (1x1x2mm3)
DT-CMR data with the long diffusion times frequently used for in-vivo
acquisitions.
The acquisition used to produce CSM
has little effect on DT-CMR data quality. Extracting the CSM directly from the
DT-CMR data, avoids additional acquisitions and the diffusion weighting does
not appear to affect the coil combination’s performance.
Quality metrics were best and HA
maps appear smoothest when b=1000-1250smm-2. Previous studies have
suggested that b=1.11/MD is optimal7, which is b=1337smm-2
in this data (MD=0.83x10-3mm2s-1). At lower b-values the image noise is a
substantial proportion of the signal loss and at higher b-values the diffusion
weighted signal may approach the noise floor.
Longer spirals readouts result in
more severe off resonance artefacts (Figure 3), but more data can be acquired
in each TR, increasing SNR efficiency. Our results suggest that increasing the
number of averages is preferential to increasing the number of spiral
interleaves.
Based on these tests we selected
an optimal protocol of b=1250 smm-2, CSM calculated from imaging
data, 20 interleaves and 40 averages. Using this a single slice DT-CMR acquisition
can be acquired within 2hours.
Spiral trajectories are
well-suited to interleaved imaging and comparing our 2hour spiral acquisition
to a time, b-value and resolution matched single-shot EPI sequence at high
resolutions (1x1x2mm3) the spiral method yielded superior results. In future work, slice interleaving could enable
equivalent DT-CMR images in ~25mins/slice.Conclusion
Interleaved spiral trajectories
can be used to acquire high quality ex-vivo DT-CMR at high resolution on a
clinical scanner with the advantages of the long diffusion time of STEAM probing
longer diffusion distances than spin-echo methods. Acquisitions are, however,
time consuming and in this work, we investigated a number of optimisations to
improve efficiency. Such methods will be valuable in assessing focal diseases, right
ventricle, atria and thinned myocardium in chronic myocardial infarction.Acknowledgements
This work was funded by British Heart Foundation Grants:
RG/19/1/34160
FS/16/40/32167
FS/11/38/28864
References
1.Nielles-Vallespin, S. et al.
Assessment of Myocardial Microstructural Dynamics by In Vivo Diffusion Tensor
Cardiac Magnetic Resonance. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 69, 661–676
(2017).
2.Tous, C., Gentles, T. L., Young,
A. A. & Pontré, B. P. Ex vivo cardiovascular magnetic resonance diffusion
weighted imaging in congenital heart disease, an insight into the
microstructures of tetralogy of Fallot, biventricular and univentricular
systemic right ventricle. J. Cardiovasc. Magn. Reson. 22, 1–12
(2020).
3.Pashakhanloo, F. et al.
Submillimeter diffusion tensor imaging and late gadolinium enhancement
cardiovascular magnetic resonance of chronic myocardial infarction. J.
Cardiovasc. Magn. Reson. 19, 1–14 (2017).
4.Gorodezky, M. et al. High
resolution in-vivo DT-CMR using an interleaved variable density spiral STEAM
sequence. Magn. Reson. Med. 81, 1580–1594 (2019).
5.Scott, A. D. et al. An
in-vivo comparison of stimulated-echo and motion compensated spin-echo
sequences for 3 T diffusion tensor cardiovascular magnetic resonance at
multiple cardiac phases. J. Cardiovasc. Magn. Reson. 20, 1–15
(2018).
6.von Deuster, C., Stoeck, C. T.,
Genet, M., Atkinson, D. & Kozerke, S. Spin echo versus stimulated echo
diffusion tensor imaging of the in vivo human heart. Magn. Reson. Med. 76,
862–872 (2016).
7.Jones, D. K. & Basser, P. J. ‘Squashing
peanuts and smashing pumpkins’: How noise distorts diffusion-weighted MR data. Magn.
Reson. Med. 52, 979–993 (2004).