Comparison of diffusion tensor imaging by cardiovascular magnetic resonance and gadolinium enhanced 3D image intensity approaches to investigation of structural anisotropy in explanted rat hearts.
Bottom Line:
Both FLASH (v3(ST)) and DTI (e3(DTI)) where compared to directly measured laminar arrays in the FLASH images.We show that ST analysis of FLASH is a useful and accurate tool in the measurement of cardiac microstructure.While both FLASH and the DTI approaches appear promising for mapping of the alignments of myocytes throughout myocardium, marked discrepancies between the cross myocyte anisotropies deduced from each method call for consideration of their respective limitations.
View Article:
PubMed Central - PubMed
Affiliation: Inserm U1045 - Centre de Recherche Cardio-Thoracique, L'Institut de rythmologie et modélisation cardiaque LIRYC, Université de Bordeaux, PTIB - campus Xavier Arnozan, Avenue du Haut Leveque, 33604, Pessac, France. olivier.bernus@u-bordeaux.fr.
ABSTRACT
Background: Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) can through the two methods 3D FLASH and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) give complementary information on the local orientations of cardiomyocytes and their laminar arrays. Methods: Eight explanted rat hearts were perfused with Gd-DTPA contrast agent and fixative and imaged in a 9.4T magnet by two types of acquisition: 3D fast low angle shot (FLASH) imaging, voxels 50 × 50 × 50 μm, and 3D spin echo DTI with monopolar diffusion gradients of 3.6 ms duration at 11.5 ms separation, voxels 200 × 200 × 200 μm. The sensitivity of each approach to imaging parameters was explored. Results: The FLASH data showed laminar alignments of voxels with high signal, in keeping with the presumed predominance of contrast in the interstices between sheetlets. It was analysed, using structure-tensor (ST) analysis, to determine the most (v1(ST)), intermediate (v2(ST)) and least (v3(ST)) extended orthogonal directions of signal continuity. The DTI data was analysed to determine the most (e1(DTI)), intermediate (e2(DTI)) and least (e3(DTI)) orthogonal eigenvectors of extent of diffusion. The correspondence between the FLASH and DTI methods was measured and appraised. The most extended direction of FLASH signal (v1(ST)) agreed well with that of diffusion (e1(DTI)) throughout the left ventricle (representative discrepancy in the septum of 13.3 ± 6.7°: median ± absolute deviation) and both were in keeping with the expected local orientations of the long-axis of cardiomyocytes. However, the orientation of the least directions of FLASH signal continuity (v3(ST)) and diffusion (e3(ST)) showed greater discrepancies of up to 27.9 ± 17.4°. Both FLASH (v3(ST)) and DTI (e3(DTI)) where compared to directly measured laminar arrays in the FLASH images. For FLASH the discrepancy between the structure-tensor calculated v3(ST) and the directly measured FLASH laminar array normal was of 9 ± 7° for the lateral wall and 7 ± 9° for the septum (median ± inter quartile range), and for DTI the discrepancy between the calculated v3(DTI) and the directly measured FLASH laminar array normal was 22 ± 14° and 61 ± 53.4°. DTI was relatively insensitive to the number of diffusion directions and to time up to 72 hours post fixation, but was moderately affected by b-value (which was scaled by modifying diffusion gradient pulse strength with fixed gradient pulse separation). Optimal DTI parameters were b = 1000 mm/s(2) and 12 diffusion directions. FLASH acquisitions were relatively insensitive to the image processing parameters explored. Conclusions: We show that ST analysis of FLASH is a useful and accurate tool in the measurement of cardiac microstructure. While both FLASH and the DTI approaches appear promising for mapping of the alignments of myocytes throughout myocardium, marked discrepancies between the cross myocyte anisotropies deduced from each method call for consideration of their respective limitations. No MeSH data available. Related in: MedlinePlus |
Related In:
Results -
Collection
License 1 - License 2 getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4414435&req=5
Mentions: Eigenvector misassignment (missorting) is the assignment of an eigenvector to the incorrect structural feature due to imaging noise and small differences in eigenvalue magnitudes. In order to explore whether ST or DTI eigenvector misassignment was a source of error in myolaminar measurement the distributions of eigenvalue ratios from the lateral ROI were examined (Figure 8). Distributions of the ratios of values are plotted rather than raw values so as to preserve the relationship between eigenvalue pairs. In Figure 8, in the lateral ROI, there was little difference between the DTI sheetlet and sheetlet normal eigenvalues (9% of voxels have less than 5% difference in λ2 and λ3; a further 21% of voxels have less than 10% difference between λ2 and λ3; i.e. in 30% of voxels λ3 is at least 85% of λ2). The DTI median (±IQR) and mean (±SD) difference between laminar eigenvalues (the laminar eigenvalues are for λ2 and λ3 for DTI and λ1 and λ2 for ST) are 14.1% ± 9.8% and 13.8 ± 6.0% respectively. This corresponds to a median difference of 77.8% ± 23.9% and a mean difference of 72.8% ± 18.7% for ST. The sets of eigenvalues which correspond to the myolaminae are not the same for DTI and ST (for DTI: λ2 and λ3, for ST: λ1 and λ2). An implication of this much greater separation of ST laminar eigenvalues than DTI laminar eigenvalues is that misclassifications of e3DTI and e2DTI are more likely than misclassifications of v3ST and v2ST.Figure 8 |
View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed
Affiliation: Inserm U1045 - Centre de Recherche Cardio-Thoracique, L'Institut de rythmologie et modélisation cardiaque LIRYC, Université de Bordeaux, PTIB - campus Xavier Arnozan, Avenue du Haut Leveque, 33604, Pessac, France. olivier.bernus@u-bordeaux.fr.
Background: Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) can through the two methods 3D FLASH and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) give complementary information on the local orientations of cardiomyocytes and their laminar arrays.
Methods: Eight explanted rat hearts were perfused with Gd-DTPA contrast agent and fixative and imaged in a 9.4T magnet by two types of acquisition: 3D fast low angle shot (FLASH) imaging, voxels 50 × 50 × 50 μm, and 3D spin echo DTI with monopolar diffusion gradients of 3.6 ms duration at 11.5 ms separation, voxels 200 × 200 × 200 μm. The sensitivity of each approach to imaging parameters was explored.
Results: The FLASH data showed laminar alignments of voxels with high signal, in keeping with the presumed predominance of contrast in the interstices between sheetlets. It was analysed, using structure-tensor (ST) analysis, to determine the most (v1(ST)), intermediate (v2(ST)) and least (v3(ST)) extended orthogonal directions of signal continuity. The DTI data was analysed to determine the most (e1(DTI)), intermediate (e2(DTI)) and least (e3(DTI)) orthogonal eigenvectors of extent of diffusion. The correspondence between the FLASH and DTI methods was measured and appraised. The most extended direction of FLASH signal (v1(ST)) agreed well with that of diffusion (e1(DTI)) throughout the left ventricle (representative discrepancy in the septum of 13.3 ± 6.7°: median ± absolute deviation) and both were in keeping with the expected local orientations of the long-axis of cardiomyocytes. However, the orientation of the least directions of FLASH signal continuity (v3(ST)) and diffusion (e3(ST)) showed greater discrepancies of up to 27.9 ± 17.4°. Both FLASH (v3(ST)) and DTI (e3(DTI)) where compared to directly measured laminar arrays in the FLASH images. For FLASH the discrepancy between the structure-tensor calculated v3(ST) and the directly measured FLASH laminar array normal was of 9 ± 7° for the lateral wall and 7 ± 9° for the septum (median ± inter quartile range), and for DTI the discrepancy between the calculated v3(DTI) and the directly measured FLASH laminar array normal was 22 ± 14° and 61 ± 53.4°. DTI was relatively insensitive to the number of diffusion directions and to time up to 72 hours post fixation, but was moderately affected by b-value (which was scaled by modifying diffusion gradient pulse strength with fixed gradient pulse separation). Optimal DTI parameters were b = 1000 mm/s(2) and 12 diffusion directions. FLASH acquisitions were relatively insensitive to the image processing parameters explored.
Conclusions: We show that ST analysis of FLASH is a useful and accurate tool in the measurement of cardiac microstructure. While both FLASH and the DTI approaches appear promising for mapping of the alignments of myocytes throughout myocardium, marked discrepancies between the cross myocyte anisotropies deduced from each method call for consideration of their respective limitations.
No MeSH data available.