| Literature DB >> 33638739 |
Julie Magat1,2,3, Valéry Ozenne4,5,6, Nicolas Cedilnik7, Jérôme Naulin4,5,6, Kylian Haliot4,5,6, Maxime Sermesant4,7, Stephen H Gilbert8, Mark Trew9, Michel Haissaguerre4,5,10, Bruno Quesson4,5,6, Olivier Bernus4,5,6.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to compare structure tensor imaging (STI) with diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) of the sheep heart (approximately the same size as the human heart).Entities:
Keywords: Cardiac microstructure; Fiber organization; Helix angle; High-resolution MRI; Sheetlet organization; Structure tensor
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33638739 PMCID: PMC8421292 DOI: 10.1007/s10334-021-00913-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: MAGMA ISSN: 0968-5243 Impact factor: 2.310
Fig. 1Pipeline of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data acquisition, post-processing, and analysis for each sample inspired from [20]. Diffusion tensor (DT) spin-echo and structure tensor (ST) gradient-echo data were processed through two different pipelines yielding the helix angle (HA), transverse angle (TA), sheetlet elevation (SE) angle, and sheetlet azimuth (SA) angle. The transformation to align the long axis of the LV along the z axis was applied on angles maps. The angle maps were then registered along the short axis using rigid registration, the left ventricle (LV) was segmented, and the 17-segment American Heart Association (AHA) model was applied to quantitatively analyze 17 segments of the mid-LV.
Fig. 2Three-dimensional (3D) high-resolution FLASH images (with an isotropic resolution of 150 µm) of one heart. On the left, volume rendering cropped by removing the heart base and anterior cavities. On the right, short axis and long axis views
Fig. 3Raw images obtained from three sheep hearts (#1 to #3). First line, b = 0 image intensity (a.u.) from DTI acquisition at an isotropic resolution of 600 µm. Second line, FLASH images intensity (a.u.) at an isotropic resolution of 150 µm short axis views
Fig. 4a Fractional anisotropy (FA) values extracted from the 3D DT analysis for each heart. FA volume rendering cropped for heart #1. b Cumulative histogram (% FA) corresponding to the whole heart for each sample
Fig. 5HA, TA, SE and SA angles between − 90° and 90° from DT imaging (DTI) and ST imaging (STI) after post-processing in short axis and long axis views for hearts #1, #2 and #3—with an isotropic resolution of 600 µm. Cut planes in the images are similar to Fig. 2
Fig. 6a Scatter plot comparison of total mean for HA angles in degree (°) divided in three areas along cardiac muscle (endocardium, mid-ventricular and epicardium) between DT and ST and between the three hearts. b Table of HA mean and SD for each heart along myocardium for hearts #1, #2 and #3. c Statistical results between three hearts and between STI and DTI methods
Fig. 7Transmural variation in myocytes orientations comparison between mean of DTI and STI for all hearts. Regions were defined by the 17-segment AHA model. Segments 1–17 are presented for DTI (violet dots) and STI (blue dots) with respective linear fit (lines). Helix angle (HA) and transverse angle (TA) are displayed. Mean of HA and TA for three hearts is shown between − 100° and 100° in y axis in function of LV wall thickness normalized between 0 and 1 corresponding to the LV epicardium and endocardium, respectively, in x axis
R2 and slope values (indicating linearity) of DTI and STI measures representing fiber orientation (HA, TA, SE nd SA angles)
| SEG | Helix angle | Transverse angle | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Linearity | Slope (°) | Linearity | Slope (°) | |||||
| DTI | STI | DTI | STI | DTI | STI | DTI | STI | |
| 1 | 0.97 | 0.95 | − 162.2 ± 1.2 | − 172.9 ± 1.6 | 0.89 | 0.82 | 70.5 ± 1.7 | 45.8 ± 1.5 |
| 2 | 0.81 | 0.95 | − 181.8 ± 2.3 | − 180.7 ± 1.6 | 0.60 | 0.64 | 21.3 ± 1.2 | − 28.8 ± 1.5 |
| 3 | 0.82 | 0.83 | − 139.4 ± 2.7 | − 127.6 ± 2.4 | 0.004 | 0.65 | 1.4 ± 1.5 | − 16.0 ± 0.8 |
| 4 | 0.81 | 0.64 | − 86.77 ± 1.7 | − 42.8 ± 1.3 | 0.02 | 0.82 | 1.76 ± 0.9 | − 16.0 ± 0.5 |
| 5 | 0.87 | 0.80 | − 103.0 ± 1.6 | − 86.8 ± 1.7 | 0.68 | 0.10 | 15.0 ± 0.7 | 3.4 ± 0.8 |
| 6 | 0.94 | 0.89 | − 131.8 ± 1.3 | − 109.8 ± 1.5 | 0.82 | 0.78 | 33.3 ± 1.1 | 25.3 ± 0.9 |
| 7 | 0.92 | 0.94 | − 153.2 ± 1.9 | − 175.3 ± 1.7 | 0.81 | 0.52 | 29.4 ± 1.0 | 23.5 ± 1.6 |
| 8 | 0.94 | 0.93 | − 179.9 ± 1.8 | − 182.5 ± 2.0 | 0.10 | 0.81 | 4.8 ± 1.0 | − 36.7 ± 1.3 |
| 9 | 0.95 | 0.91 | − 161.0 ± 1.5 | − 149.2 ± 1.8 | 0.64 | 0.73 | − 25.7 ± 1.4 | − 24.3 ± 1.0 |
| 10 | 0.83 | 0.70 | − 78.3 ± 1.5 | − 66.1 ± 1.8 | 0.85 | 0.53 | − 31.1 ± 0.9 | − 14.4 ± 0.9 |
| 11 | 0.80 | 0.66 | − 84.8 ± 1.7 | − 73.2 ± 2.2 | 0.90 | 0.45 | − 27.2 ± 0.6 | − 11.8 ± 0.9 |
| 12 | 0.92 | 0.85 | − 146.6 ± 1.7 | − 130.5 ± 2.2 | 0.004 | 0.03 | 0.2 ± 0.7 | − 2.7 ± 1.1 |
| 13 | 0.93 | 0.92 | − 121.0 ± 1.4 | − 137.5 ± 1.7 | 0.96 | 0.96 | − 47.5 ± 0.6 | − 62.5 ± 0.8 |
| 14 | 0.94 | 0.95 | − 141.8 ± 1.5 | − 138.0 ± 1.4 | 0.77 | 0.88 | − 28.5 ± 1.1 | − 40.4 ± 1.0 |
| 15 | 0.95 | 0.66 | − 108.1 ± 1.0 | − 93.6 ± 1.6 | 0.02 | 0.30 | 1.9 ± 1.0 | − 8.2 ± 0.9 |
| 16 | 0.92 | 0.85 | − 128.0 ± 1.6 | − 117.2 ± 2.0 | 0.14 | 0.55 | 6.4 ± 1.1 | 13.0 ± 0.9 |
| 17 | 0.63 | 0.66 | − 80.7 ± 2.6 | − 80.8 ± 2.4 | 0.79 | 0.75 | − 27.4 ± 1.0 | − 27.3 ± 0.7 |
R2 and slopes were measured from the endocardium to the epicardium (wall thickness normalized between 0 and 1) in 17 segments of the LV
Fig. 8Seventeen segment distribution of mean of HA, TA, SE, SA angles for all hearts for DT and STI in degrees (°) along the left cardiac muscle is represented in gray between − 30° and 30°. The last line represents the absolute difference map between DTI and STI in color (range between 0° and 20°) for each angles in degrees (°)
Fig. 9Bland–Altman plots of HA, TA, SE and SA angles measured with DTI and STI in the global left myocardium. Blue line represents the mean of angles difference between DT and ST (the bias) and red lines represent 95% limits of agreement as the mean difference (± 1.96 SD)