Kévin Moulin1, Pierre Croisille2,3, Magalie Viallon2,3, Ilya A Verzhbinsky4, Luigi E Perotti5, Daniel B Ennis1. 1. Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. 2. University of Lyon, UJM-Saint-Etienne, INSA, CNRS UMR 5520, INSERM U1206, CREATIS, Saint-Etienne, France. 3. Department of Radiology, University Hospital Saint-Etienne, Saint-Etienne, France. 4. Medical Scientist Training Program, University of California - San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA. 5. Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Myofiber strain, Eff , is a mechanistically relevant metric of cardiac cell shortening and is expected to be spatially uniform in healthy populations, making it a prime candidate for the evaluation of local cardiomyocyte contractility. In this study, a new, efficient pipeline was proposed to combine microstructural cDTI and functional DENSE data in order to estimate Eff in vivo. METHODS: Thirty healthy volunteers were scanned with three long-axis (LA) and three short-axis (SA) DENSE slices using 2D displacement encoding and one SA slice of cDTI. The total acquisition time was 11 minutes ± 3 minutes across volunteers. The pipeline first generates 3D SA displacements from all DENSE slices which are then combined with cDTI data to generate a cine of myofiber orientations and compute Eff . The precision of the post-processing pipeline was assessed using a computational phantom study. Transmural myofiber strain was compared to circumferential strain, Ecc , in healthy volunteers using a Wilcoxon sign rank test. RESULTS: In vivo, computed Eff was found uniform transmurally compared to Ecc (-0.14[-0.15, -0.12] vs -0.18 [-0.20, -0.16], P < .001, -0.14 [-0.16, -0.12] vs -0.16 [-0.17, -0.13], P < .001 and -0.14 [-0.16, -0.12] vs Ecc_C = -0.14 [-0.15, -0.11], P = .002, Eff_C vs Ecc_C in the endo, mid, and epi layers, respectively). CONCLUSION: We demonstrate that it is possible to measure in vivo myofiber strain in a healthy human population in 10 minutes per subject. Myofiber strain was observed to be spatially uniform in healthy volunteers making it a potential biomarker for the evaluation of local cardiomyocyte contractility in assessing cardiovascular dysfunction.
PURPOSE: Myofiber strain, Eff , is a mechanistically relevant metric of cardiac cell shortening and is expected to be spatially uniform in healthy populations, making it a prime candidate for the evaluation of local cardiomyocyte contractility. In this study, a new, efficient pipeline was proposed to combine microstructural cDTI and functional DENSE data in order to estimate Eff in vivo. METHODS: Thirty healthy volunteers were scanned with three long-axis (LA) and three short-axis (SA) DENSE slices using 2D displacement encoding and one SA slice of cDTI. The total acquisition time was 11 minutes ± 3 minutes across volunteers. The pipeline first generates 3D SA displacements from all DENSE slices which are then combined with cDTI data to generate a cine of myofiber orientations and compute Eff . The precision of the post-processing pipeline was assessed using a computational phantom study. Transmural myofiber strain was compared to circumferential strain, Ecc , in healthy volunteers using a Wilcoxon sign rank test. RESULTS: In vivo, computed Eff was found uniform transmurally compared to Ecc (-0.14[-0.15, -0.12] vs -0.18 [-0.20, -0.16], P < .001, -0.14 [-0.16, -0.12] vs -0.16 [-0.17, -0.13], P < .001 and -0.14 [-0.16, -0.12] vs Ecc_C = -0.14 [-0.15, -0.11], P = .002, Eff_C vs Ecc_C in the endo, mid, and epi layers, respectively). CONCLUSION: We demonstrate that it is possible to measure in vivo myofiber strain in a healthy human population in 10 minutes per subject. Myofiber strain was observed to be spatially uniform in healthy volunteers making it a potential biomarker for the evaluation of local cardiomyocyte contractility in assessing cardiovascular dysfunction.
Authors: Christian T Stoeck; Constantin von Deuster; Martin Genet; David Atkinson; Sebastian Kozerke Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2015-05-28 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Choukri Mekkaoui; Timothy G Reese; Marcel P Jackowski; Stephen F Cauley; Kawin Setsompop; Himanshu Bhat; David E Sosnovik Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-09-28 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Christopher M Haggerty; Sage P Kramer; Cassi M Binkley; David K Powell; Andrea C Mattingly; Richard Charnigo; Frederick H Epstein; Brandon K Fornwalt Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2013-08-27 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Christian T Stoeck; Aleksandra Kalinowska; Constantin von Deuster; Jack Harmer; Rachel W Chan; Markus Niemann; Robert Manka; David Atkinson; David E Sosnovik; Choukri Mekkaoui; Sebastian Kozerke Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-09-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Constantin von Deuster; Christian T Stoeck; Martin Genet; David Atkinson; Sebastian Kozerke Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2015-10-07 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Sonia Nielles-Vallespin; Zohya Khalique; Pedro F Ferreira; Ranil de Silva; Andrew D Scott; Philip Kilner; Laura-Ann McGill; Archontis Giannakidis; Peter D Gatehouse; Daniel Ennis; Eric Aliotta; Majid Al-Khalil; Peter Kellman; Dumitru Mazilu; Robert S Balaban; David N Firmin; Andrew E Arai; Dudley J Pennell Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2017-02-14 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Alexander J Wilson; Gregory B Sands; Ian J LeGrice; Alistair A Young; Daniel B Ennis Journal: Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol Date: 2022-06-03 Impact factor: 5.125
Authors: Andrew D Wisneski; Yunjie Wang; Salvatore Cutugno; Salvatore Pasta; Ashley Stroh; Jiang Yao; Tom C Nguyen; Vaikom S Mahadevan; Julius M Guccione Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2022-04-06 Impact factor: 4.755