Cargando…
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
BACKGROUND: Stimulated-echo (STEAM) and, more recently, motion-compensated spin-echo (M2-SE) techniques have been used for in-vivo diffusion tensor cardiovascular magnetic resonance (DT-CMR) assessment of cardiac microstructure. The two techniques differ in the length scales of diffusion interrogate...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5753538/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29298692 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12968-017-0425-8 |
_version_ | 1783290294005923840 |
---|---|
author | Scott, Andrew D. Nielles-Vallespin, Sonia Ferreira, Pedro F. Khalique, Zohya Gatehouse, Peter D. Kilner, Philip Pennell, Dudley J. Firmin, David N. |
author_facet | Scott, Andrew D. Nielles-Vallespin, Sonia Ferreira, Pedro F. Khalique, Zohya Gatehouse, Peter D. Kilner, Philip Pennell, Dudley J. Firmin, David N. |
author_sort | Scott, Andrew D. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Stimulated-echo (STEAM) and, more recently, motion-compensated spin-echo (M2-SE) techniques have been used for in-vivo diffusion tensor cardiovascular magnetic resonance (DT-CMR) assessment of cardiac microstructure. The two techniques differ in the length scales of diffusion interrogated, their signal-to-noise ratio efficiency and sensitivity to both motion and strain. Previous comparisons of the techniques have used high performance gradients at 1.5 T in a single cardiac phase. However, recent work using STEAM has demonstrated novel findings of microscopic dysfunction in cardiomyopathy patients, when DT-CMR was performed at multiple cardiac phases. We compare STEAM and M2-SE using a clinical 3 T scanner in three potentially clinically interesting cardiac phases. METHODS: Breath hold mid-ventricular short-axis DT-CMR was performed in 15 subjects using M2-SE and STEAM at end-systole, systolic sweet-spot and diastasis. Success was defined by ≥50% of the myocardium demonstrating normal helix angles. From successful acquisitions DT-CMR results relating to tensor orientation, size and shape were compared between sequences and cardiac phases using non-parametric statistics. Strain information was obtained using cine spiral displacement encoding with stimulated echoes for comparison with DT-CMR results. RESULTS: Acquisitions were successful in 98% of STEAM and 76% of M2-SE cases and visual helix angle (HA) map scores were higher for STEAM at the sweet-spot and diastasis. There were significant differences between sequences (p < 0.05) in mean diffusivity (MD), fractional anisotropy (FA), tensor mode, transmural HA gradient and absolute second eigenvector angle (E2A). Differences in E2A between systole and diastole correlated with peak radial strain for both sequences (p ≤ 0.01). CONCLUSION: M2-SE and STEAM can be performed equally well at peak systole at 3 T using standard gradients, but at the sweet-spot and diastole STEAM is more reliable and image quality scores are higher. Differences in DT-CMR results are potentially due to differences in motion sensitivity and the longer diffusion time of STEAM, although the latter appears to be the dominant factor. The benefits of both sequences should be considered when planning future studies and sequence and cardiac phase specific normal ranges should be used for comparison. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12968-017-0425-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5753538 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-57535382018-01-05 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 Scott, Andrew D. Nielles-Vallespin, Sonia Ferreira, Pedro F. Khalique, Zohya Gatehouse, Peter D. Kilner, Philip Pennell, Dudley J. Firmin, David N. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Research BACKGROUND: Stimulated-echo (STEAM) and, more recently, motion-compensated spin-echo (M2-SE) techniques have been used for in-vivo diffusion tensor cardiovascular magnetic resonance (DT-CMR) assessment of cardiac microstructure. The two techniques differ in the length scales of diffusion interrogated, their signal-to-noise ratio efficiency and sensitivity to both motion and strain. Previous comparisons of the techniques have used high performance gradients at 1.5 T in a single cardiac phase. However, recent work using STEAM has demonstrated novel findings of microscopic dysfunction in cardiomyopathy patients, when DT-CMR was performed at multiple cardiac phases. We compare STEAM and M2-SE using a clinical 3 T scanner in three potentially clinically interesting cardiac phases. METHODS: Breath hold mid-ventricular short-axis DT-CMR was performed in 15 subjects using M2-SE and STEAM at end-systole, systolic sweet-spot and diastasis. Success was defined by ≥50% of the myocardium demonstrating normal helix angles. From successful acquisitions DT-CMR results relating to tensor orientation, size and shape were compared between sequences and cardiac phases using non-parametric statistics. Strain information was obtained using cine spiral displacement encoding with stimulated echoes for comparison with DT-CMR results. RESULTS: Acquisitions were successful in 98% of STEAM and 76% of M2-SE cases and visual helix angle (HA) map scores were higher for STEAM at the sweet-spot and diastasis. There were significant differences between sequences (p < 0.05) in mean diffusivity (MD), fractional anisotropy (FA), tensor mode, transmural HA gradient and absolute second eigenvector angle (E2A). Differences in E2A between systole and diastole correlated with peak radial strain for both sequences (p ≤ 0.01). CONCLUSION: M2-SE and STEAM can be performed equally well at peak systole at 3 T using standard gradients, but at the sweet-spot and diastole STEAM is more reliable and image quality scores are higher. Differences in DT-CMR results are potentially due to differences in motion sensitivity and the longer diffusion time of STEAM, although the latter appears to be the dominant factor. The benefits of both sequences should be considered when planning future studies and sequence and cardiac phase specific normal ranges should be used for comparison. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12968-017-0425-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-01-03 /pmc/articles/PMC5753538/ /pubmed/29298692 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12968-017-0425-8 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Scott, Andrew D. Nielles-Vallespin, Sonia Ferreira, Pedro F. Khalique, Zohya Gatehouse, Peter D. Kilner, Philip Pennell, Dudley J. Firmin, David N. 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 |
title | 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 |
title_full | 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 |
title_fullStr | 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 |
title_full_unstemmed | 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 |
title_short | 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 |
title_sort | in-vivo comparison of stimulated-echo and motion compensated spin-echo sequences for 3 t diffusion tensor cardiovascular magnetic resonance at multiple cardiac phases |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5753538/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29298692 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12968-017-0425-8 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT scottandrewd aninvivocomparisonofstimulatedechoandmotioncompensatedspinechosequencesfor3tdiffusiontensorcardiovascularmagneticresonanceatmultiplecardiacphases AT niellesvallespinsonia aninvivocomparisonofstimulatedechoandmotioncompensatedspinechosequencesfor3tdiffusiontensorcardiovascularmagneticresonanceatmultiplecardiacphases AT ferreirapedrof aninvivocomparisonofstimulatedechoandmotioncompensatedspinechosequencesfor3tdiffusiontensorcardiovascularmagneticresonanceatmultiplecardiacphases AT khaliquezohya aninvivocomparisonofstimulatedechoandmotioncompensatedspinechosequencesfor3tdiffusiontensorcardiovascularmagneticresonanceatmultiplecardiacphases AT gatehousepeterd aninvivocomparisonofstimulatedechoandmotioncompensatedspinechosequencesfor3tdiffusiontensorcardiovascularmagneticresonanceatmultiplecardiacphases AT kilnerphilip aninvivocomparisonofstimulatedechoandmotioncompensatedspinechosequencesfor3tdiffusiontensorcardiovascularmagneticresonanceatmultiplecardiacphases AT pennelldudleyj aninvivocomparisonofstimulatedechoandmotioncompensatedspinechosequencesfor3tdiffusiontensorcardiovascularmagneticresonanceatmultiplecardiacphases AT firmindavidn aninvivocomparisonofstimulatedechoandmotioncompensatedspinechosequencesfor3tdiffusiontensorcardiovascularmagneticresonanceatmultiplecardiacphases AT scottandrewd invivocomparisonofstimulatedechoandmotioncompensatedspinechosequencesfor3tdiffusiontensorcardiovascularmagneticresonanceatmultiplecardiacphases AT niellesvallespinsonia invivocomparisonofstimulatedechoandmotioncompensatedspinechosequencesfor3tdiffusiontensorcardiovascularmagneticresonanceatmultiplecardiacphases AT ferreirapedrof invivocomparisonofstimulatedechoandmotioncompensatedspinechosequencesfor3tdiffusiontensorcardiovascularmagneticresonanceatmultiplecardiacphases AT khaliquezohya invivocomparisonofstimulatedechoandmotioncompensatedspinechosequencesfor3tdiffusiontensorcardiovascularmagneticresonanceatmultiplecardiacphases AT gatehousepeterd invivocomparisonofstimulatedechoandmotioncompensatedspinechosequencesfor3tdiffusiontensorcardiovascularmagneticresonanceatmultiplecardiacphases AT kilnerphilip invivocomparisonofstimulatedechoandmotioncompensatedspinechosequencesfor3tdiffusiontensorcardiovascularmagneticresonanceatmultiplecardiacphases AT pennelldudleyj invivocomparisonofstimulatedechoandmotioncompensatedspinechosequencesfor3tdiffusiontensorcardiovascularmagneticresonanceatmultiplecardiacphases AT firmindavidn invivocomparisonofstimulatedechoandmotioncompensatedspinechosequencesfor3tdiffusiontensorcardiovascularmagneticresonanceatmultiplecardiacphases |