Mareike Gastl1,2,3, Sophie M Peereboom4, Maximilian Fuetterer4, Florian Boenner5, Malte Kelm5, Robert Manka4,6,7, Sebastian Kozerke4. 1. Institute for Biomedical Engineering, University and ETH Zurich, Gloriastrasse 35, 8092, Zurich, Switzerland. gastl@biomed.ee.ethz.ch. 2. Department of Cardiology, University Heart Center, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. gastl@biomed.ee.ethz.ch. 3. Department of Cardiology, Pneumology and Angiology, Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany. gastl@biomed.ee.ethz.ch. 4. Institute for Biomedical Engineering, University and ETH Zurich, Gloriastrasse 35, 8092, Zurich, Switzerland. 5. Department of Cardiology, Pneumology and Angiology, Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany. 6. Department of Cardiology, University Heart Center, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 7. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To study inter-individual differences of the relation between diaphragm and heart motion, the objective of the present study was to implement respiratory navigation on the heart and compare it against the established method of navigator gating on the diaphragm for single-voxel cardiac 1H-MRS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 1H-MRS was performed on a 1.5T system in 19 healthy volunteers of mixed age (range 24-75 years). Spectra were recorded in a 6-8 ml voxel in the ventricular septum using a PRESS (point-resolved spectroscopy) sequence and ECG gating. Water-unsuppressed data acquired with pencil beam navigation on the heart were compared to data with navigation on the diaphragm. Water-suppressed data were obtained to assess triglyceride-to-water ratios. RESULTS: Water phase and amplitude fluctuations for cardiac versus diaphragm navigation did not reveal significant differences. Both navigator positions provided comparable triglyceride-to-water ratios and gating efficiencies (coefficient of variation (CoV) 7.0%). The cardiac navigator showed a good reproducibility (CoV 5.2%). DISCUSSION: Respiratory navigation on the heart does not convey an advantage over diaphragm-based navigator gating for cardiac 1H-MRS, but also no disadvantage. Consequently, cardiac and diaphragm respiratory navigation may be used interchangeably.
OBJECTIVES: To study inter-individual differences of the relation between diaphragm and heart motion, the objective of the present study was to implement respiratory navigation on the heart and compare it against the established method of navigator gating on the diaphragm for single-voxel cardiac 1H-MRS. MATERIALS AND METHODS:1H-MRS was performed on a 1.5T system in 19 healthy volunteers of mixed age (range 24-75 years). Spectra were recorded in a 6-8 ml voxel in the ventricular septum using a PRESS (point-resolved spectroscopy) sequence and ECG gating. Water-unsuppressed data acquired with pencil beam navigation on the heart were compared to data with navigation on the diaphragm. Water-suppressed data were obtained to assess triglyceride-to-water ratios. RESULTS:Water phase and amplitude fluctuations for cardiac versus diaphragm navigation did not reveal significant differences. Both navigator positions provided comparable triglyceride-to-water ratios and gating efficiencies (coefficient of variation (CoV) 7.0%). The cardiac navigator showed a good reproducibility (CoV 5.2%). DISCUSSION: Respiratory navigation on the heart does not convey an advantage over diaphragm-based navigator gating for cardiac 1H-MRS, but also no disadvantage. Consequently, cardiac and diaphragm respiratory navigation may be used interchangeably.
Entities:
Keywords:
Magnetic resonance imaging; Myocardial lipid metabolism; Proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy; Respiratory motion compensation
Authors: Ursula Reiter; Gert Reiter; Katrin Dorr; Andreas Greiser; Ralph Maderthaner; Michael Fuchsjäger Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-12-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Rutger W van der Meer; Luuk J Rijzewijk; Michaela Diamant; Sebastiaan Hammer; Michael Schär; Jeroen J Bax; Johannes W A Smit; Johannes A Romijn; Albert de Roos; Hildo J Lamb Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2008-05-19 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Satyam Sarma; Graeme Carrick-Ranson; Naoki Fujimoto; Beverley Adams-Huet; Paul S Bhella; Jeffrey L Hastings; Keri M Shafer; Shigeki Shibata; Kara Boyd; Dean Palmer; Edward W Szczepaniak; Lidia S Szczepaniak; Benjamin D Levine Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2013-09-13 Impact factor: 7.792
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: Ovidiu C Andronesi; Pallab K Bhattacharyya; Wolfgang Bogner; In-Young Choi; Aaron T Hess; Phil Lee; Ernesta M Meintjes; M Dylan Tisdall; Maxim Zaitzev; André van der Kouwe Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2020-07-20 Impact factor: 4.044