Cargando…

Evaluation of non‐Gaussian diffusion in cardiac MRI

PURPOSE: The diffusion tensor model assumes Gaussian diffusion and is widely applied in cardiac diffusion MRI. However, diffusion in biological tissue deviates from a Gaussian profile as a result of hindrance and restriction from cell and tissue microstructure, and may be quantified better by non‐Ga...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: McClymont, Darryl, Teh, Irvin, Carruth, Eric, Omens, Jeffrey, McCulloch, Andrew, Whittington, Hannah J., Kohl, Peter, Grau, Vicente, Schneider, Jürgen E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5366286/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27670633
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mrm.26466
_version_ 1782517561142804480
author McClymont, Darryl
Teh, Irvin
Carruth, Eric
Omens, Jeffrey
McCulloch, Andrew
Whittington, Hannah J.
Kohl, Peter
Grau, Vicente
Schneider, Jürgen E.
author_facet McClymont, Darryl
Teh, Irvin
Carruth, Eric
Omens, Jeffrey
McCulloch, Andrew
Whittington, Hannah J.
Kohl, Peter
Grau, Vicente
Schneider, Jürgen E.
author_sort McClymont, Darryl
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: The diffusion tensor model assumes Gaussian diffusion and is widely applied in cardiac diffusion MRI. However, diffusion in biological tissue deviates from a Gaussian profile as a result of hindrance and restriction from cell and tissue microstructure, and may be quantified better by non‐Gaussian modeling. The aim of this study was to investigate non‐Gaussian diffusion in healthy and hypertrophic hearts. METHODS: Thirteen rat hearts (five healthy, four sham, four hypertrophic) were imaged ex vivo. Diffusion‐weighted images were acquired at b‐values up to 10,000 s/mm(2). Models of diffusion were fit to the data and ranked based on the Akaike information criterion. RESULTS: The diffusion tensor was ranked best at b‐values up to 2000 s/mm(2) but reflected the signal poorly in the high b‐value regime, in which the best model was a non‐Gaussian “beta distribution” model. Although there was considerable overlap in apparent diffusivities between the healthy, sham, and hypertrophic hearts, diffusion kurtosis and skewness in the hypertrophic hearts were more than 20% higher in the sheetlet and sheetlet‐normal directions. CONCLUSION: Non‐Gaussian diffusion models have a higher sensitivity for the detection of hypertrophy compared with the Gaussian model. In particular, diffusion kurtosis may serve as a useful biomarker for characterization of disease and remodeling in the heart. Magn Reson Med 78:1174–1186, 2017. © 2016 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5366286
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-53662862017-09-15 Evaluation of non‐Gaussian diffusion in cardiac MRI McClymont, Darryl Teh, Irvin Carruth, Eric Omens, Jeffrey McCulloch, Andrew Whittington, Hannah J. Kohl, Peter Grau, Vicente Schneider, Jürgen E. Magn Reson Med Full Papers—Computer Processing and Modeling PURPOSE: The diffusion tensor model assumes Gaussian diffusion and is widely applied in cardiac diffusion MRI. However, diffusion in biological tissue deviates from a Gaussian profile as a result of hindrance and restriction from cell and tissue microstructure, and may be quantified better by non‐Gaussian modeling. The aim of this study was to investigate non‐Gaussian diffusion in healthy and hypertrophic hearts. METHODS: Thirteen rat hearts (five healthy, four sham, four hypertrophic) were imaged ex vivo. Diffusion‐weighted images were acquired at b‐values up to 10,000 s/mm(2). Models of diffusion were fit to the data and ranked based on the Akaike information criterion. RESULTS: The diffusion tensor was ranked best at b‐values up to 2000 s/mm(2) but reflected the signal poorly in the high b‐value regime, in which the best model was a non‐Gaussian “beta distribution” model. Although there was considerable overlap in apparent diffusivities between the healthy, sham, and hypertrophic hearts, diffusion kurtosis and skewness in the hypertrophic hearts were more than 20% higher in the sheetlet and sheetlet‐normal directions. CONCLUSION: Non‐Gaussian diffusion models have a higher sensitivity for the detection of hypertrophy compared with the Gaussian model. In particular, diffusion kurtosis may serve as a useful biomarker for characterization of disease and remodeling in the heart. Magn Reson Med 78:1174–1186, 2017. © 2016 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016-09-26 2017-09 /pmc/articles/PMC5366286/ /pubmed/27670633 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mrm.26466 Text en © 2016 The Authors Magnetic Resonance in Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Full Papers—Computer Processing and Modeling
McClymont, Darryl
Teh, Irvin
Carruth, Eric
Omens, Jeffrey
McCulloch, Andrew
Whittington, Hannah J.
Kohl, Peter
Grau, Vicente
Schneider, Jürgen E.
Evaluation of non‐Gaussian diffusion in cardiac MRI
title Evaluation of non‐Gaussian diffusion in cardiac MRI
title_full Evaluation of non‐Gaussian diffusion in cardiac MRI
title_fullStr Evaluation of non‐Gaussian diffusion in cardiac MRI
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of non‐Gaussian diffusion in cardiac MRI
title_short Evaluation of non‐Gaussian diffusion in cardiac MRI
title_sort evaluation of non‐gaussian diffusion in cardiac mri
topic Full Papers—Computer Processing and Modeling
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5366286/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27670633
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mrm.26466
work_keys_str_mv AT mcclymontdarryl evaluationofnongaussiandiffusionincardiacmri
AT tehirvin evaluationofnongaussiandiffusionincardiacmri
AT carrutheric evaluationofnongaussiandiffusionincardiacmri
AT omensjeffrey evaluationofnongaussiandiffusionincardiacmri
AT mccullochandrew evaluationofnongaussiandiffusionincardiacmri
AT whittingtonhannahj evaluationofnongaussiandiffusionincardiacmri
AT kohlpeter evaluationofnongaussiandiffusionincardiacmri
AT grauvicente evaluationofnongaussiandiffusionincardiacmri
AT schneiderjurgene evaluationofnongaussiandiffusionincardiacmri