Brianna F Moon1, Srikant Kamesh Iyer2, Nicholas J Josselyn2, Eileen Hwuang1, Sophia Swago1, Samuel J Keeney3,4, Estibaliz Castillero5, Giovanni Ferrari5, James J Pilla2, Joseph H Gorman3, Robert C Gorman3, Cory M Tschabrunn6, Haochang Shou7, William Matthai8, Felix W Wehrli2, Victor A Ferrari6, Yuchi Han6, Harold Litt2,6, Walter R Witschey1,2. 1. Department of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 2. Department of Radiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 3. Department of Surgery, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 4. Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 5. Department of Surgery, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York City, New York, USA. 6. Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 7. Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 8. Department of Medicine, Penn Presbyterian Medical Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Magnetic susceptibility (Δχ) alterations have shown association with myocardial infarction (MI) iron deposition, yet there remains limited understanding of the relationship between relaxation rates and susceptibility or the effect of magnetic field strength. Hence, Δχ and R 2 ∗ in MI were compared at 3T and 7T. METHODS: Subacute MI was induced by coronary artery ligation in male Yorkshire swine. 3D multiecho gradient echo imaging was performed at 1-week postinfarction at 3T and 7T. Quantitative susceptibility mapping images were reconstructed using a morphology-enabled dipole inversion. R 2 ∗ maps and quantitative susceptibility mapping were generated to assess the relationship between R 2 ∗ , Δχ, and field strength. Infarct histopathology was investigated. RESULTS: Magnetic susceptibility was not significantly different across field strengths (7T: 126.8 ± 41.7 ppb; 3T: 110.2 ± 21.0 ppb, P = NS), unlike R 2 ∗ (7T: 247.0 ± 14.8 Hz; 3T: 106.1 ± 6.5 Hz, P < .001). Additionally, infarct Δχ and R 2 ∗ were significantly higher than remote myocardium. Magnetic susceptibility at 7T versus 3T had a significant association (β = 1.02, R2 = 0.82, P < .001), as did R 2 ∗ (β = 2.35, R2 = 0.98, P < .001). Infarct pathophysiology and iron deposition were detected through histology and compared with imaging findings. CONCLUSION: R 2 ∗ showed dependence and Δχ showed independence of field strength. Histology validated the presence of iron and supported imaging findings.
PURPOSE: Magnetic susceptibility (Δχ) alterations have shown association with myocardial infarction (MI) iron deposition, yet there remains limited understanding of the relationship between relaxation rates and susceptibility or the effect of magnetic field strength. Hence, Δχ and R 2 ∗ in MI were compared at 3T and 7T. METHODS: Subacute MI was induced by coronary artery ligation in male Yorkshire swine. 3D multiecho gradient echo imaging was performed at 1-week postinfarction at 3T and 7T. Quantitative susceptibility mapping images were reconstructed using a morphology-enabled dipole inversion. R 2 ∗ maps and quantitative susceptibility mapping were generated to assess the relationship between R 2 ∗ , Δχ, and field strength. Infarct histopathology was investigated. RESULTS: Magnetic susceptibility was not significantly different across field strengths (7T: 126.8 ± 41.7 ppb; 3T: 110.2 ± 21.0 ppb, P = NS), unlike R 2 ∗ (7T: 247.0 ± 14.8 Hz; 3T: 106.1 ± 6.5 Hz, P < .001). Additionally, infarct Δχ and R 2 ∗ were significantly higher than remote myocardium. Magnetic susceptibility at 7T versus 3T had a significant association (β = 1.02, R2 = 0.82, P < .001), as did R 2 ∗ (β = 2.35, R2 = 0.98, P < .001). Infarct pathophysiology and iron deposition were detected through histology and compared with imaging findings. CONCLUSION: R 2 ∗ showed dependence and Δχ showed independence of field strength. Histology validated the presence of iron and supported imaging findings.
Authors: John C Wood; Cathleen Enriquez; Nilesh Ghugre; J Michael Tyzka; Susan Carson; Marvin D Nelson; Thomas D Coates Journal: Blood Date: 2005-04-28 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Oliver Husser; Jose V Monmeneu; Juan Sanchis; Julio Nunez; Maria P Lopez-Lereu; Clara Bonanad; Fabian Chaustre; Cristina Gomez; Maria J Bosch; Ruben Hinarejos; Francisco J Chorro; Günter A J Riegger; Angel Llacer; Vicente Bodi Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2012-06-09 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Yan Wen; Thanh D Nguyen; Zhe Liu; Pascal Spincemaille; Dong Zhou; Alexey Dimov; Youngwook Kee; Kofi Deh; Jiwon Kim; Jonathan W Weinsaft; Yi Wang Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-06-26 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Simon Daniel Robinson; Barbara Dymerska; Wolfgang Bogner; Markus Barth; Olgica Zaric; Sigrun Goluch; Günther Grabner; Xeni Deligianni; Oliver Bieri; Siegfried Trattnig Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2015-12-29 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Brianna F Moon; Srikant Kamesh Iyer; Eileen Hwuang; Michael P Solomon; Anya T Hall; Rishabh Kumar; Nicholas J Josselyn; Elizabeth M Higbee-Dempsey; Andrew Tsourkas; Akito Imai; Keitaro Okamoto; Yoshiaki Saito; James J Pilla; Joseph H Gorman; Robert C Gorman; Cory Tschabrunn; Samuel J Keeney; Estibaliz Castillero; Giovanni Ferrari; Steffen Jockusch; Felix W Wehrli; Haochang Shou; Victor A Ferrari; Yuchi Han; Avanti Gulhane; Harold Litt; William Matthai; Walter R Witschey Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2020-06-29 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Raquel P Amier; Ruben Y G Tijssen; Paul F A Teunissen; Rodrigo Fernández-Jiménez; Gonzalo Pizarro; Inés García-Lunar; Teresa Bastante; Peter M van de Ven; Aernout M Beek; Martijn W Smulders; Sebastiaan C A M Bekkers; Niels van Royen; Borja Ibanez; Robin Nijveldt Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2017-08-15 Impact factor: 5.501