| Literature DB >> 29138508 |
Jerome Chaptinel1, Jerome Yerly1,2, Yvan Mivelaz3, Milan Prsa3, Leonor Alamo1, Yvan Vial4, Gregoire Berchier1, Chantal Rohner1, François Gudinchet1, Matthias Stuber5,6.
Abstract
Fast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) led to the emergence of 'cine MRI' techniques, which enable the visualization of the beating heart and the assessment of cardiac morphology and dynamics. However, established cine MRI methods are not suitable for fetal heart imaging in utero, where anatomical structures are considerably smaller and recording an electrocardiogram signal for synchronizing MRI data acquisition is difficult. Here we present a framework to overcome these challenges. We use methods for image acquisition and reconstruction that robustly produce images with sufficient spatial and temporal resolution to detect the heart contractions of the fetus, enabling a retrospective gating of the images and thus the generation of images of the beating heart. To underline the potential of our approach, we acquired in utero images in six pregnant patients and compared these with their echocardiograms. We found good agreement in terms of diameter and area measurements, and low inter- and intra- observer variability. These results establish MRI as a reliable modality for fetal cardiac imaging, with a substantial potential for prenatal evaluation of congenital heart defects.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29138508 PMCID: PMC5686109 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-15701-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Schematic of the reconstruction framework. The data are acquired continuously irrespective of the cardiac cycle (a), and are reconstructed in real-time as a first pass (b). From the real-time images, the contraction of the fetal heart can be detected and a gating signal extracted (c). Using the gating signal, data are reordered according to the cardiac phase during which they were acquired, and images of high temporal and spatial resolution are reconstructed during a second pass (d).
Figure 2Self-retro gated reconstruction in a 28-week-old fetus in the short-axis view. Magnified views of the heart are shown in diastole (a) and systole (b), along with y–t space (c) and x–t space (d) traces obtained from the middle of the ventricles. The contraction of the heart and the thickening of the myocardium can be seen in both x–t and y–t space. For the corresponding movie, see the Supplementary Information.
Figure 3Self retro-gated reconstruction in a 32-week-old fetus in the 4-chamber view. The diastolic (a) and systolic (b) phases are presented, along with a y–t space trace (c) measured in the middle of the ventricles. The contraction of the myocardium and the thickening of the cardiac wall can be seen in the corresponding movie (Supplementary Information).
Figure 4Self retro-gated reconstruction in a 32-week-old fetus in the 3-vessel view. From left to right at the level of the dashed line are the main pulmonary artery, the ascending aorta and the superior vena cava. For the corresponding movie, see the Supplementary Information.
Number of identified anatomical structures in each patient.
| Patient (weeks of gestation at MRI examination) | Anatomical structures identified on MR images | Anatomical structures identified on echocardiographic images | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observer 1 | Observer 2 | Observer 1 | Observer 2 | |
| 1 (26 weeks 6 days) | 6 | 7 | 13 | 12 |
| 2 (31 weeks 5 days) | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 |
| 3 (28 weeks 6 days) | 12 | 12 | 13 | 12 |
| 4 (32 weeks 4 days) | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 |
| 5 (28 weeks 2 days) | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 |
| 6 (30 weeks 0 days) | 13 | 12 | 13 | 12 |
Identified anatomical structures. Stars: difference between MRI and echocardiography, bold: difference between the two observers.
| View | Anatomical structure | MRI (n = 6) | Echo (n = 6) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observer 1 | Observer 2 | Observer 1 | Observer 2 | ||
| 4-chamber view | Right atrium* |
|
| 6 | 6 |
| Left atrium* | 5 | 5 | 6 | 6 | |
| Tricuspid valve annulus* | 5 | 5 | 6 | 6 | |
| Mitral valve annulus* | 5 | 5 | 6 | 6 | |
| Right ventricle | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | |
| Left ventricle | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | |
| Moderator band* | 5 | 5 | 6 | 6 | |
| Atrial septum* | 5 | 5 |
|
| |
| Ventricular septum | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | |
| 3-vessel view | Pulmonary artery | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
| Ascending aorta | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | |
| Superior vena cava* |
|
|
|
| |
| Short-axis view | LV papillary muscles | 4 | 4 | 6 | 6 |
Figure 5Comparison of MR (left) and echocardiographic (right) images. Top row: 4-chamber view; middle row: short-axis view; bottom row: 3-vessel view.
Quantitative measurements comparison.
| Bland–Altman | Linear Regression | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bias | CI | p | Model | r2 | |||
| MR vs Echo | Diameter (mm) | Obs 1 | 0.30 | [−1.87; 2.47] | 0.266 | y = 0.81x + 1.73 | 0.625 |
| Obs 2 | −0.50 | [−2.71; 1.71] | 0.077 | y = 0.86x + 0.57 | 0.731 | ||
| Area (mm²) | Obs 1 | −2.11 | [−46.17; 41.94] | 0.798 | y = 1.05x − 8.03 | 0.838 | |
| Obs 2 | 9.21 | [−66.59; 85.01] | 0.522 | y = 0.73x + 44.50 | 0.524 | ||
| Inter observer | Diameter (mm) | MRI | −0.44 | [−2.39; 1.51] | 0.050 | y = 1.00x − 0.45 | 0.748 |
| Echo | 0.30 | [−2.24; 2.84] | 0.313 | y = 0.92x + 0.90 | 0.576 | ||
| Area (mm²) | MRI | 25.68 | [0.01; 51.35] | <0.001 | y = 0.928x + 34.29 | 0.941 | |
| Echo | 10.41 | [−49.52; 70.34] | 0.310 | y = 0.86x + 27.05 | 0.653 | ||
| Intra observer | Diameter (mm) | MRI | −0.22 | [−2.19; 1.74] | 0.310 | y = 1.03x − 0.46 | 0.757 |
| Echo | 0.21 | [−1.59; 2.00] | 0.329 | y = 0.97x + 0.46 | 0.750 | ||
| Area (mm²) | MRI | 2.06 | [−8.22; 12.34] | 0.245 | y = 1.01x + 1.01 | 0.991 | |
| Echo | 7.83 | [−35.48; 51.14] | 0.291 | y = 0.85x + 25.78 | 0.789 | ||