| Literature DB >> 30526627 |
Muhummad Sohaib Nazir1, Radhouene Neji2,3, Peter Speier4, Fiona Reid5, Daniel Stäb6, Michaela Schmidt4, Christoph Forman4, Reza Razavi2, Sven Plein2,7, Tevfik F Ismail2, Amedeo Chiribiri2, Sébastien Roujol2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Simultaneous-Multi-Slice (SMS) perfusion imaging has the potential to acquire multiple slices, increasing myocardial coverage without sacrificing in-plane spatial resolution. To maximise signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), SMS can be combined with a balanced steady state free precession (bSSFP) readout. Furthermore, application of gradient-controlled local Larmor adjustment (GC-LOLA) can ensure robustness against off-resonance artifacts and SNR loss can be mitigated by applying iterative reconstruction with spatial and temporal regularisation. The objective of this study was to compare cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) myocardial perfusion imaging using SMS bSSFP imaging with GC-LOLA and iterative reconstruction to 3 slice bSSFP.Entities:
Keywords: Cardiovascular magnetic resonance; Image acceleration; Iterative reconstruction; Myocardial perfusion imaging; Simultaneous multi-slice
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30526627 PMCID: PMC6287353 DOI: 10.1186/s12968-018-0502-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson ISSN: 1097-6647 Impact factor: 5.364
Four categories for qualitative image quality assessment. (A) overall diagnostic image quality (range 0–3), (B) sequence-related artifact (7 criteria range 0–3, maximum total score 21), (C) patient related artifact (2 criteria with range 0–3, total maximum score 6) and (D) perceived signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) (range 0–3). (B) Score for sequence related artifact relates to total number of slices acquired (artifact present in 1, 2 or 3 slices would score 1, 2 and 3 respectively for 3 slice balanced steady state free precession (bSSFP); artifact present in 1–2, 3–4 or 5–6 slices would score 1, 2 and 3 respectively for 6-slice SMS)
| Qualitative Criteria for perfusion Imaging | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | maximum score | |
| A. Overall Diagnostic Image Quality | |||||
| poor image quality and non-diagnostic | major artifact present but not limiting diagnosis | minor artifact present but not limiting diagnosis | excellent | 3 | |
| 3 | |||||
| B. Sequence related artifact | |||||
| Wrap around | none | 1 slice | 2 slices | 3 slices | 3 |
| Respiratory ghosting | none | 1 slice | 2 slices | 3 slices | 3 |
| Cardiac ghosting | none | 1 slice | 2 slices | 3 slices | 3 |
| Image blurring | none | 1 slice | 2 slices | 3 slices | 3 |
| Metallic artifact | none | 1 slice | 2 slices | 3 slices | 3 |
| Banding artifact | none | 1 slice | 2 slices | 3 slices | 3 |
| Cardiac Motion | none | 1 slice | 2 slices | 3 slices | 3 |
| 21 | |||||
| C. Patient / equipment related artifact | |||||
| Breathing motion | none | minor artifact present but not limiting diagnosis | major artifact present but not limiting diagnosis | non-diagnostic | 3 |
| ECG mistriggers | none | 1 mistriggers | 2 mistriggers | > 2 mistriggers | 3 |
| 6 | |||||
| D. Perceived Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) | |||||
| very poor SNR non-diagnostic image quality | minor noise present but not limiting diagnosis | major noise present but not limiting diagnosis | high SNR with excellent image quality | 3 | |
| 3 | |||||
Study participant characteristics for 8 patients. Results are mean ± standard deviation or number (%), as specified
| Age (years) | 50 ± 22 |
| Male: number (%) | 6 (75%) |
| Body Mass Index (kg/m2) | 25 ± 5 |
| Previous MI: number (%) | 2 (25%) |
| LVEF (%) | 52 ± 16 |
| Indexed LV EDV (ml/m2) | 95 ± 27 |
| RVEF (%) | 57 ± 10 |
| Indexed RV EDV (ml/m2) | 80 ± 23 |
| Scar present: number (%) | 2 (25%) |
| Resting Heart Rate (beats/min) | 65 ± 14 |
EDV end-diastolic volume; EF ejection fraction; LV left ventricular; MI myocardial infarction; RV right ventricular
Image quality assessment of images produced from iterative reconstruction of SMS images with different parameters, for 8 patients (see Table 1 for definition of rating scales). λσ indicates the degree of spatial regularisation, whilst λτ indicates the extent of temporal regularisation. SMS-iter 6 (λσ 0.001 λτ 0.005) had the highest overall image quality and the lowest amount of sequence related artifact. Results are mean ± standard deviation. Contrast ratio calculated as the ratio peak blood pool signal intensity: peak myocardial signal intensity
| Iterative reconstruction parameters | Overall Image Quality | Perceived SNR | Sequence Related Artifact | Patient Related Artifact | Contrast Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SMS-iter 1 (λσ 0.0005 λτ 0.0005) | 1.63 ± 0.74 | 1.63 ± 0.52 | 0.69 ± 1.10 | 0.89 ± 1.36 | 3.64 ± 0.37 |
| SMS-iter 2 (λσ 0.001 λτ 0.001) | 1.88 ± 0.35 | 1.63 ± 0.52 | 0.31 ± 0.59 | 0.89 ± 1.36 | 3.73 ± 0.44 |
| SMS-iter 3 (λσ 0.0025 λτ 0.0025) | 1.50 ± 0.53 | 2.00 ± 0.00 | 0.63 ± 1.27 | 1.00 ± 1.41 | 3.80 ± 0.47 |
| SMS-iter 4 (λσ 0.005 λτ 0.005) | 1.25 ± 0.46 | 1.88 ± 0.35 | 1.88 ± 1.62 | 1.00 ± 1.41 | 3.93 ± 0.51 |
| SMS-iter 5 (λσ 0.001 λτ 0.0025) | 2.13 ± 0.35 | 2.13 ± 0.35 | 0.25 ± 0.38 | 0.78 ± 1.40 | 3.63 ± 0.40 |
| SMS-iter 6 (λσ 0.001 λτ 0.005) | 2.50 ± 0.53 | 2.25 ± 0.46 | 0.13 ± 0.35 | 0.56 ± 1.01 | 3.62 ± 0.39 |
| SMS-iter 7 (λσ 0.001 λτ 0.01) | 2.00 ± 0.53 | 2.25 ± 0.46 | 0.56 ± 0.86 | 0.67 ± 1.32 | 3.64 ± 0.40 |
Fig. 1Dynamic perfusion series following contrast administration using 3 slice balanced steady state free precession (bSSFP) and simultaneous multi-slice (SMS)-iter 6 (λσ 0.001 λτ 0.005) in patient 1. Top to bottom: base to apex. Left to right: baseline images, contrast transit through right ventricle (RV), left ventricular (LV) blood pool, peak myocardial and washout. SMS-iter 6 (λσ 0.001 λτ 0.005) had better subjective image quality compared to 3 slice bSSFP
Fig. 2Dynamic perfusion series following contrast administration using 3 slice bSSFP and SMS-iter 6 (λσ 0.001 λτ 0.005) in patient 2. Top to bottom: base to apex. Left to right: baseline images, contrast transit through right ventricle, left ventricular blood pool, peak myocardial and washout. SMS-iter 6 (λσ 0.001 λτ 0.005) had better subjective image quality compared to 3 slice bSSFP
Fig. 3Comparison of 3 slice bSSFP, SMS-TGRAPPA and SMS-iter 6 (λσ 0.001 λτ 0.005) in 8 patients. a Overall diagnostic image quality. Scores for image quality range from 0 to 3 (0 = poor image quality and non-diagnostic, 1 = major artifact present but not limiting diagnosis, 2 = minor artifact present but not limiting diagnosis, 3 = excellent). Overall image quality was significantly higher with SMS-iter 6 (λσ 0.001 λτ 0.005) compared to SMS-TGRAPPA and 3 slice bSSFP. b Perceived Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) with 3 slice bSSFP, SMS-TGRAPPA and SMS-iter 6 (λσ 0.001 λτ 0.005). Scores for perceived signal-to-noise (SNR) from 0 to 3 (0 = very poor SNR non-diagnostic image quality, 1 = major noise present but not limiting diagnosis, 2 = minor noise present but not limiting diagnosis, 3 = high SNR with excellent image quality). Perceived SNR was significantly higher with SMS-iter 6 (λσ 0.001 λτ 0.005) compared to SMS-TGRAPPA and 3 slice bSSFP. c Contrast ratio (CR; ratio peak blood pool signal intensity: peak myocardial signal intensity). There was no significant difference in the contrast ratio between SMS-iter 6 (λσ 0.001 λτ 0.005) and 3 slice bSSFP. d Dark rim artifact (mean and standard deviation): There was no significant difference in the percentage of dark rim artifact between 3 slice bSSFP and SMS-TGRAPPA or SMS-TGRAPPA and SMS-iter 6 (λσ 0.001 λτ 0.005)
Fig. 4Peak myocardial perfusion signal intensity images and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) images of a patient with subendocardial myocardial infarction. Top panel: peak myocardial dynamic frame for SMS-iter 6 (λσ 0.001 λτ 0.005); bottom panel: LGE imaging following contrast administration. The rest perfusion defects (black arrows) matched with the areas of subendocardial scar (white arrows)