| Literature DB >> 27900508 |
Bridgette Webb1,2,3, Thomas Widek4,5, Bernhard Neumayer4,5, Christine Bruguier6, Sylvia Scheicher4,5, Hanna Sprenger4,5, Silke Grabherr6, Thorsten Schwark4,7, Rudolf Stollberger5,8.
Abstract
Developments in post-mortem imaging increasingly focus on addressing recognised diagnostic weaknesses, especially with regard to suspected natural deaths. Post-mortem MR angiography (PMMRA) may offer additional diagnostic information to help address such weaknesses, specifically in the context of sudden cardiac death. Complete filling of the coronary arteries and acceptable contrast with surrounding tissue are essential for a successful approach to PMMRA. In this work, the suitability of different liquids for inclusion in a targeted PMMRA protocol was evaluated. Factors influencing cooling of paraffinum liquidum + Angiofil® (6 %) in cadavers during routine multiphase post-mortem CT angiography were investigated. The temperature dependence of dynamic viscosity (8-20 °C), longitudinal (T1) and transverse (T2) relaxation (1-23 °C) of the proposed liquids was quadratically modelled. The relaxation behaviour of these liquids and MR scan parameters were further investigated by simulation of a radiofrequency (RF)-spoiled gradient echo (GRE) sequence to estimate potentially achievable contrast between liquids and post-mortem tissue at different temperatures across a forensically relevant temperature range. Analysis of the established models and simulations indicated that based on dynamic viscosity (27-33 mPa · s), short T1 relaxation times (155-207 ms) and a minimal temperature dependence over the investigated range of these parameters, paraffin oil and a solution of paraffin oil + Angiofil® (6 %) would be most suitable for post-mortem reperfusion and examination in MRI.Entities:
Keywords: Angiography; MRI; Post-mortem; Quantitative; Simulation; Temperature
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27900508 PMCID: PMC5388705 DOI: 10.1007/s00414-016-1482-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Legal Med ISSN: 0937-9827 Impact factor: 2.686
Fig. 1Experimentally measured changes in the temperature of paraffinum liquidum + Angiofil® (6 %) (ϑP1) with respect to cadaver temperature (ϑEE) and corresponding temperature-dependent model according to Eq. 8. Grey area indicates the 95 % confidence interval. Data obtained from routine MPMCTA examinations
Reference dynamic viscosity (μ, at 20 °C), coefficients (Avisc, Bvisc) for modelled temperature dependence of dynamic viscosity (mPa · s) according to Eq. 2 and the residual standard error (mPa · s) for each model
| Perfusate | μ (20 °C) | Avisc | Bvisc | RSE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 232 Hydroseal® (232H) | 2.9 | −0.11 | −0.0003 | 0.0055 |
| 240 Hydroseal® (240H) | 3.7 | −0.14 | 0.002 | 0.0084 |
| 250 Hydroseal® (250H) | 3.7 | −0.10 | 0.005 | 0.0071 |
| PEG200 | 64.5 | −3.22 | 0.243 | 0.54 |
| PEG400 | 128.7 | −0.11 | 1.072 | 1.16 |
| Silicon oil | 97.3 | −2.00 | 0.053 | 0.16 |
| Paraffin oil | 32.2 | −1.54 | 0.097 | 0.11 |
| Angiofil® | 91.4 | −5.51 | 0.318 | 0.86 |
| Paraffin oil + Angiofil® (6 %) | 32.5 | −1.62 | 0.094 | 0.15 |
Fig. 2Experimentally measured dynamic viscosities (mPa · s) of potential perfusates at 8, 10 and 20 °C and corresponding temperature dependence models according to Eq. 2. For explanation of abbreviations, see Table 1
Reference relaxation times (T1 and T2, at 23 °C), coefficients (AT 1,2 , BT 1,2 for modelled temperature dependence of T1 and T2 (ms) according to Eq. 5 and corresponding residual standard error (ms) for each model
| Perfusate | T1 (ms) | T2 (ms) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 (23 °C) |
|
| RSE | T2 (23 °C) |
|
| RSE | |
| 232H | 729.6 | 24.8 | 0.53 | 7.2 | 233.6 | 2.7 | −0.04 | 9.7 |
| 240H | 597.0 | 20.6 | 0.43 | 4.6 | 223.0 | 4.3 | 0.04 | 6.5 |
| 250H | 611.5 | 21.4 | 0.46 | 4.6 | 229.0 | 5.9 | 0.10 | 7.0 |
| PEG200 | 216.2 | 9.5 | 0.24 | 3.4 | 139.4 | 6.7 | 0.15 | 1.0 |
| PEG400 | 201.9 | 8.1 | 0.20 | 3.2 | 123.5 | 6.8 | 0.15 | 1.6 |
| Silicon oil | 999.4 | 14.1 | 0.27 | 10.7 | 545.5 | 15.1 | 0.32 | 15.5 |
| Paraffin oil | 206.7 | 4.9 | 0.12 | 2.7 | 144.3 | 4.8 | 0.09 | 2.4 |
| Angiofil® | 214.8 | 3.5 | 0.08 | 3.5 | 157.7 | 5.4 | 0.10 | 4.8 |
| Paraffin oil + Angiofil® (6 %) | 205.5 | 4.7 | 0.11 | 2.7 | 144.1 | 4.4 | 0.07 | 2.4 |
Fig. 3Calculated relaxation times (T1, T2) from experimental measurements of all investigated liquids at 1, 8.5, 16 and 23 °C with their corresponding temperature dependence models according to Eq. 5. For comparison, numerically investigated cadaveric tissue and Gadovist® doped water (2 mmol/l) based on values and models in [23, 27] are also displayed. For explanation of abbreviations, see Table 1
Fig. 4Bloch equation simulation of RF-spoiled GRE sequence. Contrast between paraffin oil and cadaveric s.c. fat (a) and between paraffin oil and cadaveric myocardium (b) at 1, 8.5, 16 and 23 °C. The shaded area in both plots corresponds to the defined range of optimal flip angles (Table 3)
Range of simulated flip angles which maximises contrast between selected perfusates (paraffin oil and a paraffin oil + Angiofil® (6 %) solution) and cadaveric tissue (s.c. fat and myocardium, [27]) for temperatures between 1–23 °C. Maximum relative difference in contrast (dr%) at four temperatures resulting from the use of all flip angles in the defined range
| Range of optimal flip angles (°) | ||||
| Temperature (°C) | Paraffin oil | Paraffin oil + Angiofil® (6 %) | ||
| s.c. Fat | Myocardium | s.c. Fat | Myocardium | |
| 1 | 43–44 | 35–37 | 43–44 | 34–37 |
| 8.5 | 43–44 | 35–37 | 43–44 | 34–37 |
| 16 | 43–44 | 35–37 | 43–44 | 34–37 |
| 23 | 43–44 | 35–37 | 43–44 | 34–37 |
| Maximum relative difference (dr) in contrast (%) | ||||
| Temperature (°C) | Paraffin oil | Paraffin oil + Angiofil® (6 %) | ||
| s.c. Fat | Myocardium | s.c. Fat | Myocardium | |
| 1 | 0.07 | 0.24 | 0.07 | 0.50 |
| 8.5 | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.01 | 0.30 |
| 16 | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.02 | 0.18 |
| 23 | 0.03 | 0.26 | 0.03 | 0.19 |