James W Goldfarb1, Usama Hasan, Wenguo Zhao, Jing Han. 1. Department of Research and Education, Saint Francis Hospital, Roslyn, New York, USA; Program in Biomedical Engineering, SUNY Stony Brook, Stony Brook, New York, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To quantitatively investigate myocardial phase in multiple-gradient-echo images to determine normal phase angle ranges as a function of echo time and anatomical position and then compare phase values from patients with myocardial infarction with those normal ranges to determine the feasibility of intramyocardial hemorrhage detection. METHODS: Fifteen normal control and 11 patients with reperfused myocardial infarction participated in this prospective study. A 1.5 T magnetic resonance system was used to perform volumetric CINE, high-pass filtered (HPF) phase, T2-weighted, T2*-weighted and late gadolinium-enhanced infarct imaging at four times points after myocardial infarction. HPF-phase analyzed using a 16-segment model was compared with late gadolinium-enhanced infarct imaging and T2* measurements. RESULTS: Myocardial HPF-phase angle in the normal control group was small (-0.008 ± 0.027 radians). There was a difference between anatomical segments, with less variation in septal segments compared with cyclic variations in non-septal segments. Abnormal phase was only shown in myocardial segments with transmural late gadolinium-enhanced and microvascular obstruction consistent with intramyocardial hemorrhage. There were six studies from three patients (seven segments at 3 days, five segments at follow-up) with HPF-phase outside of normal range indicative of intramyocardial hemorrhage. CONCLUSION: Myocardial HPF-phase angle is normally small and varies by anatomical myocardial segment. intramyocardial hemorrhage causes a phase decrease beyond normal variations.
PURPOSE: To quantitatively investigate myocardial phase in multiple-gradient-echo images to determine normal phase angle ranges as a function of echo time and anatomical position and then compare phase values from patients with myocardial infarction with those normal ranges to determine the feasibility of intramyocardial hemorrhage detection. METHODS: Fifteen normal control and 11 patients with reperfused myocardial infarction participated in this prospective study. A 1.5 T magnetic resonance system was used to perform volumetric CINE, high-pass filtered (HPF) phase, T2-weighted, T2*-weighted and late gadolinium-enhanced infarct imaging at four times points after myocardial infarction. HPF-phase analyzed using a 16-segment model was compared with late gadolinium-enhanced infarct imaging and T2* measurements. RESULTS: Myocardial HPF-phase angle in the normal control group was small (-0.008 ± 0.027 radians). There was a difference between anatomical segments, with less variation in septal segments compared with cyclic variations in non-septal segments. Abnormal phase was only shown in myocardial segments with transmural late gadolinium-enhanced and microvascular obstruction consistent with intramyocardial hemorrhage. There were six studies from three patients (seven segments at 3 days, five segments at follow-up) with HPF-phase outside of normal range indicative of intramyocardial hemorrhage. CONCLUSION: Myocardial HPF-phase angle is normally small and varies by anatomical myocardial segment. intramyocardial hemorrhage causes a phase decrease beyond normal variations.
Authors: Ryanne P Betgem; Guus A de Waard; Robin Nijveldt; Aernout M Beek; Javier Escaned; Niels van Royen Journal: Nat Rev Cardiol Date: 2014-11-18 Impact factor: 32.419
Authors: Yi Wang; Pascal Spincemaille; Zhe Liu; Alexey Dimov; Kofi Deh; Jianqi Li; Yan Zhang; Yihao Yao; Kelly M Gillen; Alan H Wilman; Ajay Gupta; Apostolos John Tsiouris; Ilhami Kovanlikaya; Gloria Chia-Yi Chiang; Jonathan W Weinsaft; Lawrence Tanenbaum; Weiwei Chen; Wenzhen Zhu; Shixin Chang; Min Lou; Brian H Kopell; Michael G Kaplitt; David Devos; Toshinori Hirai; Xuemei Huang; Yukunori Korogi; Alexander Shtilbans; Geon-Ho Jahng; Daniel Pelletier; Susan A Gauthier; David Pitt; Ashley I Bush; Gary M Brittenham; Martin R Prince Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-03-10 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Yan Wen; Thanh D Nguyen; Zhe Liu; Pascal Spincemaille; Dong Zhou; Alexey Dimov; Youngwook Kee; Kofi Deh; Jiwon Kim; Jonathan W Weinsaft; Yi Wang Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-06-26 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Ananth Kidambi; John D Biglands; David M Higgins; David P Ripley; Arshad Zaman; David A Broadbent; Adam K McDiarmid; Peter P Swoboda; Tarique Al Musa; Bara Erhayiem; John P Greenwood; Sven Plein Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2014-10-28 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Brianna F Moon; Srikant Kamesh Iyer; Eileen Hwuang; Michael P Solomon; Anya T Hall; Rishabh Kumar; Nicholas J Josselyn; Elizabeth M Higbee-Dempsey; Andrew Tsourkas; Akito Imai; Keitaro Okamoto; Yoshiaki Saito; James J Pilla; Joseph H Gorman; Robert C Gorman; Cory Tschabrunn; Samuel J Keeney; Estibaliz Castillero; Giovanni Ferrari; Steffen Jockusch; Felix W Wehrli; Haochang Shou; Victor A Ferrari; Yuchi Han; Avanti Gulhane; Harold Litt; William Matthai; Walter R Witschey Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2020-06-29 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: David Carrick; Caroline Haig; Nadeem Ahmed; Margaret McEntegart; Mark C Petrie; Hany Eteiba; Stuart Hood; Stuart Watkins; M Mitchell Lindsay; Andrew Davie; Ahmed Mahrous; Ify Mordi; Samuli Rauhalammi; Naveed Sattar; Paul Welsh; Aleksandra Radjenovic; Ian Ford; Keith G Oldroyd; Colin Berry Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 7.792