Paul de Heer1, Maurice B Bizino2, Hildo J Lamb2, Andrew G Webb3. 1. C.J. Gorter Center for High Field MR, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. 2. Department of Radiology, Leiden University, Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. 3. C.J. Gorter Center for High Field MR, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. a.webb@lumc.nl.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To optimize data acquisition parameters in cardiac proton MR spectroscopy, and to evaluate the intra- and intersession variability in myocardial triglyceride content. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data acquisition parameters at 3 Tesla (T) were optimized and reproducibility measured using, in total, 49 healthy subjects. The signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR) and the variance in metabolite amplitude between averages were measured for: (i) global versus local power optimization; (ii) static magnetic field (B0 ) shimming performed during free-breathing or within breathholds; (iii) post R-wave peak measurement times between 50 and 900 ms; (iv) without respiratory compensation, with breathholds and with navigator triggering; and (v) frequency selective excitation, Chemical Shift Selective (CHESS) and Multiply Optimized Insensitive Suppression Train (MOIST) water suppression techniques. Using the optimized parameters intra- and intersession myocardial triglyceride content reproducibility was measured. Two cardiac proton spectra were acquired with the same parameters and compared (intrasession reproducibility) after which the subject was removed from the scanner and placed back in the scanner and a third spectrum was acquired which was compared with the first measurement (intersession reproducibility). RESULTS: Local power optimization increased SNR on average by 22% compared with global power optimization (P = 0.0002). The average linewidth was not significantly different for pencil beam B0 shimming using free-breathing or breathholds (19.1 Hz versus 17.5 Hz; P = 0.15). The highest signal stability occurred at a cardiac trigger delay around 240 ms. The mean amplitude variation was significantly lower for breathholds versus free-breathing (P = 0.03) and for navigator triggering versus free-breathing (P = 0.03) as well as for navigator triggering versus breathhold (P = 0.02). The mean residual water signal using CHESS (1.1%, P = 0.01) or MOIST (0.7%, P = 0.01) water suppression was significantly lower than using frequency selective excitation water suppression (7.0%). Using the optimized parameters an intrasession limits of agreement of the myocardial triglyceride content of -0.11% to +0.04%, and an intersession of -0.15% to +0.9%, were achieved. The coefficient of variation was 5% for the intrasession reproducibility and 6.5% for the intersession reproducibility. CONCLUSION: Using approaches designed to optimize SNR and minimize the variation in inter-average signal intensities and frequencies/phases, a protocol was developed to perform cardiac MR spectroscopy on a clinical 3T system with high reproducibility. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2016;44:1151-1158.
PURPOSE: To optimize data acquisition parameters in cardiac proton MR spectroscopy, and to evaluate the intra- and intersession variability in myocardial triglyceride content. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data acquisition parameters at 3 Tesla (T) were optimized and reproducibility measured using, in total, 49 healthy subjects. The signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR) and the variance in metabolite amplitude between averages were measured for: (i) global versus local power optimization; (ii) static magnetic field (B0 ) shimming performed during free-breathing or within breathholds; (iii) post R-wave peak measurement times between 50 and 900 ms; (iv) without respiratory compensation, with breathholds and with navigator triggering; and (v) frequency selective excitation, Chemical Shift Selective (CHESS) and Multiply Optimized Insensitive Suppression Train (MOIST) water suppression techniques. Using the optimized parameters intra- and intersession myocardial triglyceride content reproducibility was measured. Two cardiac proton spectra were acquired with the same parameters and compared (intrasession reproducibility) after which the subject was removed from the scanner and placed back in the scanner and a third spectrum was acquired which was compared with the first measurement (intersession reproducibility). RESULTS: Local power optimization increased SNR on average by 22% compared with global power optimization (P = 0.0002). The average linewidth was not significantly different for pencil beam B0 shimming using free-breathing or breathholds (19.1 Hz versus 17.5 Hz; P = 0.15). The highest signal stability occurred at a cardiac trigger delay around 240 ms. The mean amplitude variation was significantly lower for breathholds versus free-breathing (P = 0.03) and for navigator triggering versus free-breathing (P = 0.03) as well as for navigator triggering versus breathhold (P = 0.02). The mean residual water signal using CHESS (1.1%, P = 0.01) or MOIST (0.7%, P = 0.01) water suppression was significantly lower than using frequency selective excitation water suppression (7.0%). Using the optimized parameters an intrasession limits of agreement of the myocardial triglyceride content of -0.11% to +0.04%, and an intersession of -0.15% to +0.9%, were achieved. The coefficient of variation was 5% for the intrasession reproducibility and 6.5% for the intersession reproducibility. CONCLUSION: Using approaches designed to optimize SNR and minimize the variation in inter-average signal intensities and frequencies/phases, a protocol was developed to perform cardiac MR spectroscopy on a clinical 3T system with high reproducibility. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2016;44:1151-1158.
Authors: Mareike Gastl; Sophie M Peereboom; Maximilian Fuetterer; Florian Boenner; Malte Kelm; Robert Manka; Sebastian Kozerke Journal: MAGMA Date: 2018-10-30 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Adrianus J Bakermans; S Matthijs Boekholdt; Dylan K de Vries; Yolan J Reckman; Emile S Farag; Paul de Heer; Laween Uthman; Simone W Denis; Coert J Zuurbier; Riekelt H Houtkooper; David R Koolbergen; Jolanda Kluin; R Nils Planken; Hildo J Lamb; Andrew G Webb; Gustav J Strijkers; Daniel A Beard; Jeroen A L Jeneson; Aart J Nederveen Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2021-02-10 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Elisabeth H M Paiman; Marloes Louwerens; Dorine Bresters; Jos J M Westenberg; Qian Tao; Rob J van der Geest; Arjan C Lankester; Arno A W Roest; Hildo J Lamb Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2019-01-17 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Huub J van Eyk; Elisabeth H M Paiman; Maurice B Bizino; Paul de Heer; Petronella H Geelhoed-Duijvestijn; Aan V Kharagjitsingh; Johannes W A Smit; Hildo J Lamb; Patrick C N Rensen; Ingrid M Jazet Journal: Cardiovasc Diabetol Date: 2019-07-09 Impact factor: 9.951
Authors: Maurice B Bizino; Ingrid M Jazet; Paul de Heer; Huub J van Eyk; Ilona A Dekkers; Patrick C N Rensen; Elisabeth H M Paiman; Hildebrandus J Lamb; Johannes W Smit Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2019-11-05 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Stefan Wampl; Tito Körner; Ladislav Valkovič; Siegfried Trattnig; Michael Wolzt; Martin Meyerspeer; Albrecht Ingo Schmid Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-04-29 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Vincent L Aengevaeren; Martijn Froeling; Sandra van den Berg-Faay; Melissa T Hooijmans; Jithsa R Monte; Gustav J Strijkers; Aart J Nederveen; Thijs M H Eijsvogels; Adrianus J Bakermans Journal: Physiol Rep Date: 2020-09