Sebastian Weingärtner1,2,3, Fabian Zimmer3, Gregory J Metzger2, Kâmil Uğurbil2, Pierre-Francois Van de Moortele2, Mehmet Akçakaya1,2. 1. Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. 2. Center for Magnetic Resonance Research, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. 3. Computer Assisted Clinical Medicine, University Medical Center Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To develop and evaluate a robust motion-insensitive Bloch-Siegert shift based B1+ mapping method in the heart. METHODS: Cardiac Bloch-Siegert B1+ mapping was performed with interleaved positive and negative off-resonance shifts and diastolic spoiled gradient echo imaging in 12 heartbeats. Numerical simulations were performed to study the impact of respiratory motion. The method was compared with three-dimensional (3D) actual flip angle imaging (AFI) and two-dimensional (2D) saturated double angle method (SDAM) in phantom scans. Cardiac B1+ maps of three different views were acquired in six healthy volunteers using Bloch-Siegert and SDAM during breath-hold and free breathing. In vivo maps were evaluated for inter-view consistency using the correlation coefficients of the B1+ profiles along the lines of intersection between the views. RESULTS: For the Bloch-Siegert sequence, numerical simulations indicated high similarity between breath-hold and free breathing scans, and phantom results indicated low deviation from the 3D AFI reference (normalized root mean square error [NRMSE] = 2.0%). Increased deviation was observed with 2D SDAM (NRMSE = 5.0%) due to underestimation caused by imperfect excitation slice profiles. Breath-hold and free breathing Bloch-Siegert in vivo B1+ maps were visually comparable with no significant difference in the inter-view consistency (P > 0.36). SDAM showed strongly impaired B1+ map quality during free breathing. Inter-view consistency was significantly lower than with the Bloch-Siegert method (breath-hold: P = 0.014, free breathing: P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The proposed interleaved Bloch-Siegert sequence enables cardiac B1+ mapping with improved inter-view consistency and high resilience to respiratory motion. Magn Reson Med 78:670-677, 2017.
PURPOSE: To develop and evaluate a robust motion-insensitive Bloch-Siegert shift based B1+ mapping method in the heart. METHODS: Cardiac Bloch-Siegert B1+ mapping was performed with interleaved positive and negative off-resonance shifts and diastolic spoiled gradient echo imaging in 12 heartbeats. Numerical simulations were performed to study the impact of respiratory motion. The method was compared with three-dimensional (3D) actual flip angle imaging (AFI) and two-dimensional (2D) saturated double angle method (SDAM) in phantom scans. Cardiac B1+ maps of three different views were acquired in six healthy volunteers using Bloch-Siegert and SDAM during breath-hold and free breathing. In vivo maps were evaluated for inter-view consistency using the correlation coefficients of the B1+ profiles along the lines of intersection between the views. RESULTS: For the Bloch-Siegert sequence, numerical simulations indicated high similarity between breath-hold and free breathing scans, and phantom results indicated low deviation from the 3D AFI reference (normalized root mean square error [NRMSE] = 2.0%). Increased deviation was observed with 2D SDAM (NRMSE = 5.0%) due to underestimation caused by imperfect excitation slice profiles. Breath-hold and free breathing Bloch-Siegert in vivo B1+ maps were visually comparable with no significant difference in the inter-view consistency (P > 0.36). SDAM showed strongly impaired B1+ map quality during free breathing. Inter-view consistency was significantly lower than with the Bloch-Siegert method (breath-hold: P = 0.014, free breathing: P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The proposed interleaved Bloch-Siegert sequence enables cardiac B1+ mapping with improved inter-view consistency and high resilience to respiratory motion. Magn Reson Med 78:670-677, 2017.
Authors: Bram F Coolen; Tessa Geelen; Leonie E M Paulis; Arno Nauerth; Klaas Nicolay; Gustav J Strijkers Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2010-10-19 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Rebecca S Samson; Claudia A M Wheeler-Kingshott; Mark R Symms; Daniel J Tozer; Paul S Tofts Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2005-12-27 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Ye Tian; Jason Mendes; Brent Wilson; Alexander Ross; Ravi Ranjan; Edward DiBella; Ganesh Adluru Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2020-06-03 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Max H C van Riel; Zidan Yu; Shota Hodono; Ding Xia; Hersh Chandarana; Koji Fujimoto; Martijn A Cloos Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2021-04-26 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Andreas Lesch; Matthias Schlöegl; Martin Holler; Kristian Bredies; Rudolf Stollberger Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-10-12 Impact factor: 4.668