| Literature DB >> 27404992 |
Felix C Horn1, Madhwesha Rao1, Neil J Stewart1, Jim M Wild1,2.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare quantitative fractional ventilation measurements from multiple breath washout imaging (MBW-I) using hyperpolarized 3 He with both spoiled gradient echo (SPGR) and balanced steady-state free precession (bSSFP) three-dimensional (3D) pulse sequences and to evaluate the feasibility of MBW-I with hyperpolarized 129 Xe.Entities:
Keywords: 129Xe; 3He; hyperpolarized gas; lung function; multiple breath washout
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27404992 PMCID: PMC5484367 DOI: 10.1002/mrm.26319
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Magn Reson Med ISSN: 0740-3194 Impact factor: 4.668
Subject Demographics and Study Results.
| Subject | Sex | Age, y | Weight, kg | FEV1, %pred | Study 1 Sequence | SNR | Fractional Ventilation, | Tidal Volume, mL | Global Turnover | Images Used to Fit Fractional Ventilation | Voxel‐by‐voxel Correlation Coefficient | Bland–Altman Analysis, MD (SD) in % | Study 2 Imaging Nucleus | SNR | Fractional Ventilation, | Tidal Volume, mL | Global Turnover | Images Used to Fit Fractional Ventilation | Voxel‐by‐voxel Correlation Coefficient | Bland–Altman Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | F | 32 | 61 | 116 | SPGR | 186 | 0.28 ± 0.09 | 627 | 0.22 | 4 | 0.58 | 30.1 (38) | 129Xe | 116 | 0.30 ± 0.08 | 740 | 0.30 | 3 | 0.59 | 38 (34) |
| bSSFP | 446 | 0.24 ± 0.11 | 602 | 0.21 | 4 | 3He | 191 | 0.20 ± 0.07 | 450 | 0.19 | 4 | |||||||||
| 2 | M | 24 | 77 | 108 | SPGR | 48 | 0.33 ± 0.10 | 915 | 0.25 | 3 | 0.62 | 21.7 (27) | 129Xe | 48 | 0.35 ± 0.09 | 1110 | 0.31 | 4 | 0.46 | 25 (26) |
| bSSFP | 27 | 0.28 ± 0.11 | 1103 | 0.26 | 3 | 3He | 163 | 0.26 ± 0.07 | 920 | 0.27 | 3 | |||||||||
| 3 | M | 30 | 75 | 82 | SPGR | 96 | 0.25 ± 0.09 | 919 | 0.18 | 5 | 0.68 | 2.6 (23) | 129Xe | 102 | 0.30 ± 0.08 | 1150 | 0.27 | 3 | 0.81 | 2 (18) |
| bSSFP | 233 | 0.21 ± 0.08 | 937 | 0.21 | 5 | 3He | 114 | 0.26 ± 0.07 | 980 | 0.28 | 4 | |||||||||
| 4 | M | 28 | 84 | 108 | SPGR | 147 | 0.22 ± 0.07 | 826 | 0.21 | 3 | 0.73 | 3.9 (23) | 129Xe | 121 | 0.24 ± 0.08 | 830 | 0.22 | 4 | 0.45 | 69 (45) |
| bSSFP | 240 | 0.22 ± 0.08 | 937 | 0.19 | 4 | 3He | 178 | 0.11 ± 0.05 | 620 | 0.18 | 4 | |||||||||
| 5 | M | 28 | 79 | 108 | SPGR | 53 | 0.19 ± 0.09 | 589 | 0.11 | 4 | 0.40 | 28.7 (42) | 129Xe | 39 | 0.19 ± 0.08 | 685 | 0.14 | 3 | 0.28 | 12 (69) |
| bSSFP | 196 | 0.12 ± 0.06 | 523 | 0.13 | 5 | 3He | 145 | 0.18 ± 0.07 | 500 | 0.15 | 4 | |||||||||
| 6 | F | 38 | 80 | 126 | SPGR | 82 | 0.47 ± 0.08 | 1206 | 0.35 | 3 | 0.56 | 7.6 (19) | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| bSSFP | 202 | 0.47 ± 0.07 | 1265 | 0.34 | 4 | |||||||||||||||
| 7 | M | 28 | 75 | 98 | SPGR | 60 | 0.24 ± 0.08 | 1132 | 0.22 | 3 | 0.67 | 11.6 (21) | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| bSSFP | 82 | 0.26 ± 0.07 | 1048 | 0.23 | 4 |
Values were calculated according to Quanjer et al. 34.
For 3He bSSFP acquisition, twice the in‐plane resolution and a gas dose of 200 mL 3He were used.
bSSFP imaging was performed using a flip angle of 7° with 200 mL 3He.
SNR = signal to noise ratio (standard deviation of noise divided by mean signal from the lungs) of the first image acquired during MBW‐I.
Global fractional ventilation derived from the ratio of mean tidal volume (measured by pneumotachograph) to mean inspiratory lung volume (calculated from images).
MD = mean difference (expressed as the coefficient of variation) and SD = standard deviation (expressed in percent).
Pearson's correlation coefficient (P < 0.001 in all cases).
MBW‐I Parameters for Study 1 and Study 2.
| Parameter | Study 1 | Study 2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SPGR (3He) | bSSFP (3He) | bSSFP (3He) | bSSFP (129Xe) | |
| Pulse repetition time, ms | 2.5 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 2.9 |
| Echo time, ms | 0.75 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.9 |
| Field of view, cm | 38 × 30.4 | 38 × 30.4 | 38 × 30.4 | 38 × 30.4 |
| Acquisition matrix, mm | 32 × 26 × 26 | 32 × 26 × 26 | 32 × 26 × 26 | 32 × 26 × 26 |
| Voxel size, mm | 12 × 12 × 10 | 12 × 12 × 10 | 12 × 12 × 10 | 12 × 12 × 10 |
| Scan time, s | 1.7 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 2.0 |
| Slice thickness, mm | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| Bandwidth, kHz | 32.3 | 166 | 166 | 16.1 |
| Flip angle | 1° | 14° | 7° | 7° |
| RF pulse envelope | Gaussian | Gaussian | Hard pulse | Hard pulse |
| Pulse width, μS | 500 | 500 | 200 | 200 |
| Dose of hyperpolarized gas, mL | 200 | 100 | 200 | 600 |
In subject 2 3He bSSFP imaging was performed using 200 mL of hyperpolarized 3He to demonstrate the feasibility of acquiring images with double the in‐plane resolution (64 × 51 × 26), resulting in a voxel size of 6 × 6 × 10 mm and an acquisition time of 2.1 s.
Figure 1Representative results from MBW‐I. Comparison of 3He MBW‐I with SPGR with bSSFP sequences (subject 4) and comparison of 129Xe and 3He bSSFP MBW‐I (subject 3). Schematic lung volume curve during MBW‐I as derived from flow recordings at the mouth. Fractional ventilation maps of the slices shown in panel A. For all acquisitions, the time delay between images was fixed to 4 s to allow subjects to comfortably complete one breathing cycle.
Figure 2(A, B) Comparative fractional ventilation maps from 3He MBW‐I using bSSFP and SPGR sequences (subject 6) (A) and from 129Xe and 3He MBW‐I using bSSFP sequences (subject 3) (B). (C) Voxel‐by‐voxel correlation plots of the datasets in panel A (top, r = 0.56) and panel B (bottom, r = 0.81). The solid red line indicates the line of unity, and the color map represents the density of points, with blue <10 and red >30.
Figure 3Comparison of fractional ventilation maps derived from subject 2 using low‐resolution SPGR and high‐resolution bSSFP imaging sequences with hyperpolarized 3He. The k‐space of the SPGR acquisition was zero‐filled before reconstruction to mimic the resolution of the bSSFP images. Fractional ventilation maps from selected slices (anterior to posterior) are shown, along with whole‐lung fractional ventilation histograms. Slight differences in the intensity of the maps from each acquisition result from using the same color map in both cases. Different average fractional ventilation values were obtained (SPGR average [standard deviation] r = 0.33 [0.10], bSSFP average [standard deviation] r = 0.28 [0.11]); see also the shift in peak position of the histograms.