Ran Huo1, Huiyu Qiao2, Shuo Chen3, Hualu Han3, Qiang Zhao4, Jiajia Xu4, Ying Liu4, Xihai Zhao2, and Huishu Yuan4
1Department of Radiology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China, 2Tsinghua University, Beijing, China, 3United Imaging Research Institute of Intelligent Imaging, Beijing, China, 4Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China
Synopsis
Keywords: Atherosclerosis, Cardiovascular
Motivation: Conventional carotid artery wall MR imaging is time-consuming due to multiple MR acquisitions. MULTIPLEX, a fast single-scan MRI technique, provides T1W/PDW/T2* maps simultaneously. Its potential in evaluating arterial plaque remains unexplored.
Goal(s): Evaluating MULTIPLEX in characterising carotid plaque.
Approach: We compared T1/PD/T2* values of arterial morphology and plaque components (lipid-rich necrotic core/intraplaque haemorrhage/loose matrix) in 33 participants using ANOVA between conventional technique and MULTIPLEX.
Results: Significant T1/PD/T2* differences of plaque compositions mentioned above were found across all three groups with MULTIPLEX, similar to conventional technique. Varied plaque components displayed T1/PD/T2* differences.
Impact: MULTIPLEX shows
promises in characterising arterial plaque beyond the brain.
Abstract
Introduction:
The conventional multi-contrast carotid MR vessel wall imaging has been widly used
to evaluate the carotid plaque compositional features based on signal intensity
in various contrast images. The single-scan 3D multi-parametirc MR imaging, known
as MULTI-parametric MR imaging with fLEXible design (MULTIPLEX) has shown great
promise in evaluating the human brain [1,2]. However, its potential for evaluating
carotid plaque features remains unexplored. In this study, we aimed to evaluate
the value of in vivo MULTIPLEX in characterising
carotid compositional features.
Methods: Patients with carotid
stenosis referred for carotid
endarterectomy were enrolled from Jun 2022 to Aug 2022 in Peking
University Third Hosptial. All participants underwent MR imaging for carotid
arteries on a 3.0T MR scanner with 8-channel carotid coil to acquire following
sequences: 1) conventional multi-contrast carotid MR vessel wall imaging
sequences: 3D time-of-flight: TR/TE 17.6/6.7 ms, flip angle 8°, and slice
thickness 2 mm; 2D T1-weighted: TR/TE 850/13.44 ms and slice thickness 2 mm; 2D
T2-weighted: TR/TE 2000/96.6 ms and slice thickness 2 mm; and Simultaneous
Non-contrast Angiography intraplaque hemorrhage (SNAP) imaging: TR/TE 9.6/4.0
ms, flip angle 12°, and slice thickness 1 mm; 2) MULTIPLEX sequence: TR/TE 29.8/3.55
ms, flip angle 4 °, and slice thickness 2 mm, 5 echoes, voxel size 0.60 x 0.60 x
2.00 mm3.
The
conventional multi-contrast carotid MR images of participants were
independently evaluated by two radiologists with over 5 years’experience in
neurovascular MRI. The contours of morphological
features including lumen and wall as well as compositional
features (Fig. 1-3) (including
lipid rich necrotic core (LRNC), intraplaque hemorrhage (IPH) and loose matrix
(LM) of plaque in the index
carotid artery) were outlined on multi-contrast carotid MR images using
VesselExplorer2 (Tsimaging Healthcare, Beijing, China) [3-5]. The quantitative
carotid MR images were registered with multi-contrast carotid MR images in
three steps. First, the resolution of quantitative carotid MR images was
interpolated to be consistent with multi-contrast images. Second, the
quantitative and multi-contrast images were automatically matched according to
the location information of each slice. Third, the contours of lumen, wall and
plaque components on multi-contrast images were mapped to the matched
quantitative mages, and radiologists manually registered the quantitative and
multi-contrast images based on those contours with Matlab2020a. The mean values
of T1, PD and T2* of wall and the above plaque components on quantitative
images were computed and compared using ANOVA.
Results: In
total, 33 subjects (65.3 ± 7.2 years, 21 males) were included, of which 32 (97.0%),
15 (45.5%) and 22 (66.7%) had carotid LRNC and IPH as well as LM respectively. The
mean and standard deviations were as follows: 1) T1 values (ms), wall/LRNC/IPH/LM,
878.1 ± 208.3/877.6 ± 267.6/673.8 ± 234.6/990.1 ± 350.2; 2) PD values (ms), wall/LRNC/IPH/LM,
72.1 ± 20.0/67.5 ± 23.4/66.4 ± 24.9/79.4 ± 23.6; and 3) T2* values (ms), wall/LRNC/IPH/LM,
23.5 ± 8.0/20.8 ± 9.4/18.8 ± 5.9/27.2 ± 15.3. Our ANOVA results identified significant
differences (Fig. 4) (T1: F = 27.2, p< 0.001; PD: F = 9.0,
p< 0.001; and T2*: F = 18.5, p< 0.001) across all the three groups. Post hoc analysis identified
the PD/T2* mean values of LRNC were lower than that of wall, the T1/T2* mean
values of IPH were lower than that of wall, and T1/PD/T2* mean values of LM
were always higher than those of wall. Furthermore, the results of inter-composition
comparasions identified that significant differences in T1/PD/T2* mean values
between LRNC and LM (ps< 0.001), in
T1/PD/T2* values between IPH and LM (ps<
0.001), and in T1 mean values between LRNC and IPH (p< 0.001).
Conclusion: The
carotid MR imaging with MULTIPLEX including quantitative values of T1/PD/T2* have
the potential capability of evaluating plaque compositional features.Acknowledgements
This work was supported by National Natural
Science Foundation of China (82302287).References
[1]
Ye Y, Lyu J, Hu Y, et al. MULTI-parametric MR imaging with fLEXible design (MULTIPLEX).
Magn Reson Med 2022;87(2):658-673.
[2]
Warntjes JB, Leinhard OD, West J, Lundberg P. Rapid magnetic resonance
quantification on the brain: optimization for clinical usage. Magn Reson Med
2008;60:320-329.
[3]
Saam T, Ferguson MS, Yarnykh VL, et al. Quantitative evaluation of carotid
plaque composition by in vivo MRI. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol
2005;25(1):234-239.
[4]
Chu B, Kampschulte A, Ferguson MS, et al. Hemorrhage in the atherosclerotic
carotid plaque: A high-resolution MRI study. Stroke 2004;35(5):1079-1084.
[5]
Cai JM. Hatsukami TS, Ferguson MS, et al. Classification of human carotid atherosclerotic
lesions with in vivo multicontrast magnetic resonance imaging. Circulation;106(11):1368-73.