| Literature DB >> 30924566 |
Jane Ellis1, Ladislav Valkovič1,2, Lucian A B Purvis1, William T Clarke1,3, Christopher T Rodgers1,4.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We test the reproducibility of human cardiac phosphorus MRS (31 P-MRS) at ultra-high field strength (7 T) for the first time. The primary motivation of this work was to assess the reproducibility of a 'rapid' 6½ min 31 P three-dimensional chemical shift imaging (3D-CSI) sequence, which if sufficiently reproducible would allow the study of stress-response processes. We compare this with an established 28 min protocol, designed to record high-quality spectra in a clinically feasible scan time. Finally, we use this opportunity to compare the effect of per-subject B0 shimming on data quality and reproducibility in the 6½ min protocol.Entities:
Keywords: 31P; 7 T; MRS; cardiac; human; reproducibility
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30924566 PMCID: PMC6546607 DOI: 10.1002/nbm.4095
Source DB: PubMed Journal: NMR Biomed ISSN: 0952-3480 Impact factor: 4.044
Figure 1Study protocol. A ‘session’ was defined as a series of consecutive sequences, acquired without the patient leaving the magnet. ‘Dataset’ refers to a single CSI sequence acquired within a session. A, the visit protocol for acquisition of 28 min CSI datasets; B, the 6½ min datasets
Figure 2A, F, positions of the CSI matrix showing the rotation of the CSI grid in the short‐axis view of the heart for both protocols. B‐E, G‐J, spectra from the corresponding coloured voxel marked on the localizer images
Figure 3Variation in PCr/ATP value measured at four voxel locations and combinations of spectral sums of these voxels for 28 min CSI (A) and 6½ min CSI (B). The tables below provide the PCr SNR, the CRLB on PCr, the CV (intersubject SD/mean) and the CR (1.96 × interscan SD) of the measured PCr/ATP. Please note that the values here refer to interexamination repeatability
Figure 4Intersubject variability between scans for the 28 min CSI protocol (left) and the 6½ min CSI protocol (right). Error bars show ±1 SD. The leftmost bar shows DCM patient data acquired by Stoll et al20 using the same scanning protocol and hardware for comparison
Figure 5A‐C, bland–Altman plots of intersession variability in PCr/ATP for 28 min CSI (a) and 6½ min CSI (B, C). D, plot of intrasession variability for 6½ min CSI with per‐subject shimming. Solid black lines show the bias from zero (red line); dashed lines mark ±1.96 SD
Power calculations showing the sample size needed in a paired study to determine statistical significance (α = 0.05) for both 28 min and 6.5 min CSI sequences at 7 T, and 31 min CSI sequence at 3 T, for a change of 0.2 in the measured PCr/ATP
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |
| Power 95% | 23 | 40 | 104 |
| Power 90% | 19 | 33 | 85 |
| Power 80% | 15 | 25 | 64 |
3 T reproducibility values for this power calculation were taken from the study by Tyler et al.15 We made this analysis using the original raw data from that study provided by Professor Tyler. If comparing this table with Reference 15, please note that the values reported in Table 1 of Reference 15 were computed using the SD of the absolute difference in PCR/ATP for Scan 1 and Scan 2, whereas here we have used the SD of the signed difference.
Reproducibility values of human cardiac 31P‐MRS from the literature
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| This study | 7 | 10 | 28 | 3D‐CSI | 1.5 × 1.5 × 2.5 = 5.6 mL | 26 |
| 6½ | 3D‐CSI | 2.5 × 1.5 × 2.5 = 9.4 mL | 39 | |||
| Bakermans et al, 2017 | 3 | 8 | 7 | Single‐voxel 3D ISIS | (8.0)3 = 512 mL | 40 |
| 1D ISIS with 1D CSI | — | 43 | ||||
| 1D ISIS with 1D CSI | — | 44 | ||||
| Tyler et al, 2009 | 3 | 20 | 30 | 3D CSI | 1.5 × 1.5 × 2.5 = 5.6 mL | 53 |
| Abozguia et al, 2010 | 3 | 1 | 23 | 3D ISIS | 4.4 × 5.5 × 3.7 = 90 mL | 31 |
| Schaefer et al, 1992 | 1.5 | 7 | 7 | 1D CSI | — | 22 |
| Lamb et al, 1996 | 1.5 | 16 | 10 | 3D ISIS | 6.0 × 7.0 × 7.0 = 294 mL | 38 |
| 15 | 1D CSI | — | — | |||
| 30 | 2D ISIS +1D CSI | 1.0 cm thick slices | 46 |
Absolute reproducibility is calculated as [CR/(mean PCr/ATP)] × 100%.
A single subject was scanned eight times to assess reproducibility.
Absolute reproducibility was computed by extracting raw values from Figure 5 in Reference 25 using WebPlotDigitizer (https://apps.automeris.io/wpd/).