Brendan L Eck1, Nicole Seiberlich2, Scott D Flamm3, Jesse I Hamilton2, Abhilash Suresh4, Yash Kumar4, Mazen Hanna4, Angel Houston5, Derrek Tew5, W H Wilson Tang4, Deborah H Kwon3. 1. Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA. Electronic address: eckb@ccf.org. 2. Department of Radiology, Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, 1150 West Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA. 3. Imaging Institute, Heart, Vascular, and Thoracic Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA. 4. Heart, Vascular, and Thoracic Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA. 5. Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiac amyloidosis (CA) is an infiltrative cardiomyopathy with poor prognosis absent appropriate treatment. Elevated native myocardial T1 and T2 have been reported for CA, and tissue characterization by cardiac MRI may expedite diagnosis and treatment. Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Fingerprinting (cMRF) has the potential to enable tissue characterization for CA through rapid, simultaneous T1 and T2 mapping. Furthermore, cMRF signal timecourses may provide additional information beyond myocardial T1 and T2. METHODS: Nine CA patients and five controls were scanned at 3 T using a prospectively gated cMRF acquisition. Two cMRF-based analysis approaches were examined: (1) relaxometric-based linear discriminant analysis (LDA) using native T1 and T2, and (2) signal timecourse-based LDA. The Fisher coefficient was used to compare the separability of patient and control groups from both approaches. Leave-two-out cross-validation was employed to evaluate the classification error rates of both approaches. RESULTS: Elevated myocardial T1 and T2 was observed in patients vs controls (T1: 1395 ± 121 vs 1240 ± 36.4 ms, p < 0.05; T2: 36.8 ± 3.3 vs 31.8 ± 2.6 ms, p < 0.05). LDA scores were elevated in patients for relaxometric-based LDA (0.56 ± 0.28 vs 0.18 ± 0.13, p < 0.05) and timecourse-based LDA (0.97 ± 0.02 vs 0.02 ± 0.02, p < 0.05). The Fisher coefficient was greater for timecourse-based LDA (60.8) vs relaxometric-based LDA (1.6). Classification error rates were lower for timecourse-based LDA vs relaxometric-based LDA (12.6 ± 24.3 vs 22.5 ± 30.1%, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that cMRF may be a valuable technique for the detection and characterization of CA. Analysis of cMRF signal timecourse data may improve tissue characterization as compared to analysis of native T1 and T2 alone.
BACKGROUND: Cardiac amyloidosis (CA) is an infiltrative cardiomyopathy with poor prognosis absent appropriate treatment. Elevated native myocardial T1 and T2 have been reported for CA, and tissue characterization by cardiac MRI may expedite diagnosis and treatment. Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Fingerprinting (cMRF) has the potential to enable tissue characterization for CA through rapid, simultaneous T1 and T2 mapping. Furthermore, cMRF signal timecourses may provide additional information beyond myocardial T1 and T2. METHODS: Nine CA patients and five controls were scanned at 3 T using a prospectively gated cMRF acquisition. Two cMRF-based analysis approaches were examined: (1) relaxometric-based linear discriminant analysis (LDA) using native T1 and T2, and (2) signal timecourse-based LDA. The Fisher coefficient was used to compare the separability of patient and control groups from both approaches. Leave-two-out cross-validation was employed to evaluate the classification error rates of both approaches. RESULTS: Elevated myocardial T1 and T2 was observed in patients vs controls (T1: 1395 ± 121 vs 1240 ± 36.4 ms, p < 0.05; T2: 36.8 ± 3.3 vs 31.8 ± 2.6 ms, p < 0.05). LDA scores were elevated in patients for relaxometric-based LDA (0.56 ± 0.28 vs 0.18 ± 0.13, p < 0.05) and timecourse-based LDA (0.97 ± 0.02 vs 0.02 ± 0.02, p < 0.05). The Fisher coefficient was greater for timecourse-based LDA (60.8) vs relaxometric-based LDA (1.6). Classification error rates were lower for timecourse-based LDA vs relaxometric-based LDA (12.6 ± 24.3 vs 22.5 ± 30.1%, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that cMRF may be a valuable technique for the detection and characterization of CA. Analysis of cMRF signal timecourse data may improve tissue characterization as compared to analysis of native T1 and T2 alone.
Authors: Tom Hilbert; Ding Xia; Kai Tobias Block; Zidan Yu; Riccardo Lattanzi; Daniel K Sodickson; Tobias Kober; Martijn A Cloos Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2019-11-25 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: David N Firmin; Dudley J Pennell; Zohya Khalique; Pedro F Ferreira; Andrew D Scott; Sonia Nielles-Vallespin; Ana Martinez-Naharro; Marianna Fontana; Phillip Hawkins Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2020-05-15 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Brendan L Eck; Scott D Flamm; Deborah H Kwon; W H Wilson Tang; Claudia Prieto Vasquez; Nicole Seiberlich Journal: Prog Nucl Magn Reson Spectrosc Date: 2020-11-06 Impact factor: 9.795
Authors: Theodoros D Karamitsos; Stefan K Piechnik; Sanjay M Banypersad; Marianna Fontana; Ntobeko B Ntusi; Vanessa M Ferreira; Carol J Whelan; Saul G Myerson; Matthew D Robson; Philip N Hawkins; Stefan Neubauer; James C Moon Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2013-03-14