Hsin-Jung Yang1,2, Behzad Sharif1, Jianing Pang1, Avinash Kali1,2, Xiaoming Bi3, Ivan Cokic1, Debiao Li1,2,4, Rohan Dharmakumar1,4,5. 1. Biomedical Imaging Research Institute, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA. 2. Department of Bioengineering, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA. 3. MR R&D, Siemens Healthcare, Los Angeles, California, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA. 5. Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To develop and test a time-efficient, free-breathing, whole heart T2 mapping technique at 3.0T. METHODS: ECG-triggered three-dimensional (3D) images were acquired with different T2 preparations at 3.0T during free breathing. Respiratory motion was corrected with a navigator-guided motion correction framework at near perfect efficiency. Image intensities were fit to a monoexponential function to derive myocardial T2 maps. The proposed 3D, free breathing, motion-corrected (3D-FB-MoCo) approach was studied in ex vivo canine hearts and kidneys, healthy volunteers, and canine subjects with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). RESULTS: Ex vivo T2 values from proposed 3D T2 -prep gradient echo were not different from two-dimensional (2D) spin echo (P = 0.7) and T2 -prep balanced steady-state free precession (bSSFP) (P = 0.7). In healthy volunteers, compared with 3D-FB-MoCo and breath-held 2D T2 -prep bSSFP (2D-BH), non-motion-corrected (3D-FB-Non-MoCo) myocardial T2 was longer, had a larger coefficient of variation (COV), and had a lower image quality (IQ) score (T2 = 40.3 ms, COV = 38%, and IQ = 2.3; all P < 0.05). Conversely, the mean and COV and IQ of 3D-FB-MoCo (T2 = 37.7 ms, COV = 17%, and IQ = 3.5) and 2D-BH (T2 = 38.0 ms, COV = 15%, and IQ = 3.8) were not different (P = 0.99, P = 0.74, and P = 0.14, respectively). In AMI, T2 values and edema volumes from 3D-FB-MoCo and 2D-BH were closely correlated (R(2) = 0.88 and 0.96, respectively). CONCLUSION: The proposed whole heart T2 mapping approach can be performed within 5 min with similar accuracy to that of the 2D-BH T2 mapping approach.
PURPOSE: To develop and test a time-efficient, free-breathing, whole heart T2 mapping technique at 3.0T. METHODS: ECG-triggered three-dimensional (3D) images were acquired with different T2 preparations at 3.0T during free breathing. Respiratory motion was corrected with a navigator-guided motion correction framework at near perfect efficiency. Image intensities were fit to a monoexponential function to derive myocardial T2 maps. The proposed 3D, free breathing, motion-corrected (3D-FB-MoCo) approach was studied in ex vivo canine hearts and kidneys, healthy volunteers, and canine subjects with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). RESULTS: Ex vivo T2 values from proposed 3D T2 -prep gradient echo were not different from two-dimensional (2D) spin echo (P = 0.7) and T2 -prep balanced steady-state free precession (bSSFP) (P = 0.7). In healthy volunteers, compared with 3D-FB-MoCo and breath-held 2D T2 -prep bSSFP (2D-BH), non-motion-corrected (3D-FB-Non-MoCo) myocardial T2 was longer, had a larger coefficient of variation (COV), and had a lower image quality (IQ) score (T2 = 40.3 ms, COV = 38%, and IQ = 2.3; all P < 0.05). Conversely, the mean and COV and IQ of 3D-FB-MoCo (T2 = 37.7 ms, COV = 17%, and IQ = 3.5) and 2D-BH (T2 = 38.0 ms, COV = 15%, and IQ = 3.8) were not different (P = 0.99, P = 0.74, and P = 0.14, respectively). In AMI, T2 values and edema volumes from 3D-FB-MoCo and 2D-BH were closely correlated (R(2) = 0.88 and 0.96, respectively). CONCLUSION: The proposed whole heart T2 mapping approach can be performed within 5 min with similar accuracy to that of the 2D-BH T2 mapping approach.
Authors: Asad A Usman; Kirsi Taimen; Marie Wasielewski; Jennifer McDonald; Saurabh Shah; Shivraman Giri; William Cotts; Edwin McGee; Robert Gordon; Jeremy D Collins; Michael Markl; James C Carr Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2012-10-15 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Matthias G Friedrich; Udo Sechtem; Jeanette Schulz-Menger; Godtfred Holmvang; Pauline Alakija; Leslie T Cooper; James A White; Hassan Abdel-Aty; Matthias Gutberlet; Sanjay Prasad; Anthony Aletras; Jean-Pierre Laissy; Ian Paterson; Neil G Filipchuk; Andreas Kumar; Matthias Pauschinger; Peter Liu Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2009-04-28 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Jayanth R Arnold; Theodoros D Karamitsos; Paul Bhamra-Ariza; Jane M Francis; Nick Searle; Matthew D Robson; Ruairidh K Howells; Robin P Choudhury; Ornella E Rimoldi; Paolo G Camici; Adrian P Banning; Stefan Neubauer; Michael Jerosch-Herold; Joseph B Selvanayagam Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2012-05-29 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Alexander R Payne; Matthew Casey; John McClure; Ross McGeoch; Aengus Murphy; Rosemary Woodward; Andrew Saul; Xiaoming Bi; Sven Zuehlsdorff; Keith G Oldroyd; Niko Tzemos; Colin Berry Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2011-03-22 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Christian E Anderson; Charlie Y Wang; Yuning Gu; Rebecca Darrah; Mark A Griswold; Xin Yu; Chris A Flask Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-08-10 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Francisco Contijoch; Srikant Kamesh Iyer; James J Pilla; Paul Yushkevich; Joseph H Gorman; Robert C Gorman; Harold Litt; Yuchi Han; Walter R T Witschey Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2016-08-31 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Feiyu Chen; Tao Zhang; Joseph Y Cheng; Xinwei Shi; John M Pauly; Shreyas S Vasanawala Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2016-12-09 Impact factor: 4.668