| Literature DB >> 25719750 |
Keigo Kawaji1, Murilo Foppa1, Sébastien Roujol1, Mehmet Akçakaya1, Reza Nezafat1.
Abstract
Coronary magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) requires a correctly timed trigger delay derived from a scout cine scan to synchronize k-space acquisition with the quiescent period of the cardiac cycle. However, heart rate changes between breath-held cine and free-breathing coronary imaging may result in inaccurate timing errors. Additionally, the determined trigger delay may not reflect the period of minimal motion for both left and right coronary arteries or different segments. In this work, we present a whole-heart coronary imaging approach that allows flexible selection of the trigger delay timings by performing k-space sampling over an enlarged acquisition window. Our approach addresses coronary motion in an interactive manner by allowing the operator to determine the temporal window with minimal cardiac motion for each artery region. An electrocardiogram-gated, k-space segmented 3D radial stack-of-stars sequence that employs a custom rotation angle is developed. An interactive reconstruction and visualization platform is then employed to determine the subset of the enlarged acquisition window for minimal coronary motion. Coronary MRI was acquired on eight healthy subjects (5 male, mean age = 37 ± 18 years), where an enlarged acquisition window of 166-220 ms was set 50 ms prior to the scout-derived trigger delay. Coronary visualization and sharpness scores were compared between the standard 120 ms window set at the trigger delay, and those reconstructed using a manually adjusted window. The proposed method using manual adjustment was able to recover delineation of five mid and distal right coronary artery regions that were otherwise not visible from the standard window, and the sharpness scores improved in all coronary regions using the proposed method. This paper demonstrates the feasibility of a whole-heart coronary imaging approach that allows interactive selection of any subset of the enlarged acquisition window for a tailored reconstruction for each branch region.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25719750 PMCID: PMC4342264 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0112020
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Simulation Results indicating the optimal GA/n rotation angle in a k-space segmented radial stack of starts sequence that provides uniform distribution over a range of reconstruction windows.
| nTFE | GA/noptimal with λ = 0.7 | Percentile (%) rank per 18000 |
|---|---|---|
| 32 | 55.62 (GA/2) | 5 |
| 34 | 13.91 (GA/8) | 10 |
| 36 | 9.27 (GA/12) | 0.5 |
| 38 | 55.62 (GA/2) | 12 |
| 40 | 7.42 (GA/15) | 3 |
| 42 | 37.08 (GA/3) | 3 |
| 44 | 18.54 (GA/6) | 12 |
| 46 | 13.91 (GA/8) | 10 |
| 48 | 15.89 (GA/7) | 5 |
| 50 | 13.91 (GA/8) | 3 |
| 52 | 10.11 (GA/5) | 7 |
| 54 | 8.56 (GA/13) | 0.01 |
| 56 | 10.11 (GA/11) | 3 |
| 58 | 7.95 (GA/14) | 5 |
| 60 | 13.91 (GA/8) | 7 |
| 62 | 12.36 (GA/8) | 1 |
| 64 | 9.27 (GA/2) | 5 |
In Bold—nTFE (36 = 166 ms window, 48 = 220 ms window) and angles used in this study.
Fig 4Screenshot of graphical user interface (left side) and workflow of GPU reconstruction (right side). Computation times are reported for each step, requiring a total of 190–350 milliseconds for the GPU operation to perform.
An additional 0.2 ms is required for total latency to transfer the input and resulting image data back and forth between the GUI and GPU.
Average Processing Times GPU vs CPU Methods.
| Test Methodology | Total Computation Time (seconds) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (#Samples × #Spokes × #Coils) #k-space points to grid | GPU-TRANSFER | GPU-GRID | GPU-TOTAL | CPU-PREP | CPU-GRID TOTAL |
| 1.3 mm resolution Recon | |||||
| RecWin Size = 7; (464 × 98 × 8) = 363776 pts | 0.18 ± 0.01 | 0.19 ± 0.02 | 0.37 ± 0.04 | 1.5 ± 0.1 | 1.2 ± 0.1 |
| RecWin Size = 16; (464 × 224 × 8) = 831488 pts | 0.18 ± 0.01 | 0.23 ± 0.02 | 0.41 ± 0.04 | 3.5 ± 0.4 | 1.4 ± 0.1 |
| RecWin Size = 48; (464 × 672 × 8) = 2494464 pts | 0.18 ± 0.01 | 0.35 ± 0.03 | 0.53 ± 0.04 | 10.5 ± 1.1 | 1.8 ± 0.2 |
| Submillimeter resolution Recon | |||||
| RecWin Size = 48; (600 × 864 × 8) = 4147200 pts | 0.19 ± 0.01 | 0.78 ± 0.08 | 0.96 ± 0.10 | 17.9 ± 1.8 | 2.8 ± 0.29 |
Vessel Wall Sharpness Scores.
| Subj. | RCA (Root) | RCA (Mid) | RCA (Distal) | LAD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Standard Window Score; Manually Derived Window Score] (%) Repeated measurement in next row. | ||||
| 1 | 0.37; 0.43 | ND; 0.36 | ND; 0.22 | 0.29; 0.30 |
| 0.37; 0.43 | ND; 0.37 | ND; 0.24 | 0.30; 0.32 | |
| 2 | 0.37; SAME | 0.37; 0.42 | 0.24; 0.30 | 0.30; SAME |
| 0.33; SAME | 0.38; 0.39 | 0.24; 0.30 | 0.27; SAME | |
| 3 | 0.34; 0.39 | ND; 0.38 | ND; 0.31 | 0.30; 0.40 |
| 0.32; 0.37 | ND; 0.39 | ND; 0.30 | 0.32; 0.42 | |
| 4 | 0.37; 0.39 | 0.31; 0.31 | ND; ND | 0.42; 0.39 |
| 0.31; 0.38 | 0.28; 0.29 | ND; ND | 0.40; 0.38 | |
| 5 | 0.36; 0.40 | ND; 0.44 | 0.21; 0.29 | 0.27; 0.37 |
| 0.35; 0.38 | ND; 0.42 | 0.22; 0.28 | 0.27; 0.38 | |
| 6 | 0.42; SAME | 0.45; 0.49 | 0.29; SAME | 0.41; SAME |
| 0.43; SAME | 0.44; 0.46 | 0.30; SAME | 0.41; SAME | |
| 7 | 0.28; SAME | — | — | ND; ND |
| 0.28; SAME | — | — | ND; ND | |
| 8 | 0.52; SAME | 0.41; 0.47 | ND; ND | 0.42; SAME |
| 0.53; SAME | 0.42; 0.49 | ND; ND | 0.44; SAME | |
(*)—Vessel was non-descript with the standard, but visualized with the manually window.
(SAME)—The standard window yielded good image quality after visual assessment.
(ND)—Vessel was non-descript.
(—)—Subject 7 exhibited having a small rudimentary right with left-dominance, thus the RCA-mid to distal end was not present. BOLD—reconstructions are shown in Fig. 5.
Manually Selected vs Standard Temporal Window.
| Subj. | Standard Window | RCA (Root) | RCA (Mid) | RCA (Distal) | LAD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Start of Window, End of Window.] (milliseconds) with respect to ECG trigger delay. | |||||
| 1 | [620, 740] | [583, 670] | [579, 630] | [592, 651] | [611, 717] |
| 2 | [620, 740] | SAME | [575, 639] | [583, 657] | SAME |
| 3 | [510,630] | [497, 571] | [492, 556] | [469, 543] | [573, 660] |
| 4 | [600,720] | [559, 679] | [559, 679] | ND | [609, 715] |
| 5 | [550,670] | [528, 625] | [509, 564] | [545, 632] | [505, 597] |
| 6 | [580,700] | SAME | [566, 658] | SAME | SAME |
| 7 | [670, 890] | SAME | — | — | ND |
| 8 | [650, 720] | SAME | [650, 714] | ND | SAME |
(SAME)—The standard window yielded good image quality after visual assessment. (ND)—Vessel was non-descript.
(—)—Subject 7 exhibited having a small rudimentary right with left-dominance, thus the RCA-mid to distal end was not present.
SNR and CNR Measurements.
| Subj. | RCA (Root) | RCA (Mid) | RCA (Distal) | LAD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Myocardium SNR; Lumen SNR; Lumen-to-Myocardium CNR] | ||||
| 1 (Standard) | 8.6; 22.0; | ND | ND | 5.6; 13,9; |
| (Adjusted) | 6.7; 23.8; | 5.6; 21.8; | 7.3; 14; | 5.4; 17.6; |
| 2 (Standard) | 7.2; 16.7; | 10.2; 21.9; | 8.4; 20.8; | 5.7; 15.2; |
| (Adjusted) | SAME | 4.4; 18.4; | 6.3; 16.5; | SAME |
| 3 (Standard) | 4.5; 15.1; | ND | ND | 5.6; 17.9; |
| (Adjusted) | 5.1; 20.8; | 7.1; 17.1; | 7.2; 16.4; | 6.0; 20.6; |
| 4 (Standard) | 10.1; 23.8; | 9.0; 27.5; | ND | 6.2; 22.1; |
| (Adjusted) | 7.6; 28.6; | 12.9; 30.0; | ND | 6.5; 24.7; |
| 5 (Standard) | 13.0; 26.4; | ND | 7.0; 14.9; | 4.1; 11.8; |
| (Adjusted) | 6.6; 22.2; | 4.5; 15.7; | 6.7; 16.8; | 6.2; 17.6; |
| 6 (Standard) | 6.8; 36.3; | 12.8; 38.3; | 7.7; 19.7; | 5.5; 17.8; |
| (Adjusted) | SAME | 15.9; 56.2; | SAME | SAME |
| 7 (Standard) | 9.4; 32.8; | — | — | ND |
| (Adjusted) | SAME | ND | ||
| 8 (Standard) | 10.5; 41.1; | 13.5; 34.3; | ND | 8.8; 34.8; |
| (Adjusted) | SAME | 10.2; 46.0; | ND | SAME |
(*)—Vessel was non-descript with the standard, but visualized with the manually window.
(SAME)—The standard window yielded good image quality after visual assessment.
(ND)—Vessel was non-descript.
(—)—Subject 7 exhibited having a small rudimentary right with left-dominance, thus the RCA-mid to distal end was not present.
BOLD—Lumen-to-Myocardium CNR.
Fig 5Examples of the impact of interactive vs. fixed selection of the trigger delay and window for visualization of RCA in two different subjects.
In Subject #1, using the interactively selected window mitigates the temporal blurring seen in RCA images reconstructed using fixed trigger delay and window. In Subject #2, the distal region of RCA can be fully recovered by interactively adjusting the trigger delay and window size.
Fig 2A counter-example showing that using a Golden Angle radial spoke rotation (left column) may not be optimal in a 3D stack-of-stars sequence.
The top row shows the k-space spokes and its gridding reconstruction performed from data from a single echo readout acquired over 14 consecutive heartbeats, while the bottom row shows the spoke distribution from 10 consecutive echoes. Using a different angle (right column; 15.89°), a more uniform distribution of the spokes is achieved. The spoke distribution is sensitive to the rotation angle, the number of TFEs per each heart beat, and the number of heart beats required to fill each kz stack. Written informed consents were obtained from the subjects for publication of all image data.