Improved co-registration of ex-vivo and in-vivo cardiovascular magnetic resonance images using heart-specific flexible 3D printed acrylic scaffold combined with non-rigid registration.
Animals
Chronic Disease
Disease Models, Animal
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Models, Anatomic
Models, Cardiovascular
Myocardial Infarction
/ diagnostic imaging
Myocardial Reperfusion Injury
/ diagnostic imaging
Myocardium
/ pathology
Pliability
Predictive Value of Tests
Printing, Three-Dimensional
Reproducibility of Results
Sus scrofa
Ventricular Function, Left
Ventricular Remodeling
3D printing
Co-registration
Ex-vivo CMR
Scar imaging
Journal
Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance
ISSN: 1532-429X
Titre abrégé: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9815616
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 10 2019
10 10 2019
Historique:
received:
11
11
2018
accepted:
02
09
2019
entrez:
11
10
2019
pubmed:
11
10
2019
medline:
6
5
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Ex-vivo cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging has played an important role in the validation of in-vivo CMR characterization of pathological processes. However, comparison between in-vivo and ex-vivo imaging remains challenging due to shape changes occurring between the two states, which may be non-uniform across the diseased heart. A novel two-step process to facilitate registration between ex-vivo and in-vivo CMR was developed and evaluated in a porcine model of chronic myocardial infarction (MI). Seven weeks after ischemia-reperfusion MI, 12 swine underwent in-vivo CMR imaging with late gadolinium enhancement followed by ex-vivo CMR 1 week later. Five animals comprised the control group, in which ex-vivo imaging was undertaken without any support in the LV cavity, 7 animals comprised the experimental group, in which a two-step registration optimization process was undertaken. The first step involved a heart specific flexible 3D printed scaffold generated from in-vivo CMR, which was used to maintain left ventricular (LV) shape during ex-vivo imaging. In the second step, a non-rigid co-registration algorithm was applied to align in-vivo and ex-vivo data. Tissue dimension changes between in-vivo and ex-vivo imaging were compared between the experimental and control group. In the experimental group, tissue compartment volumes and thickness were compared between in-vivo and ex-vivo data before and after non-rigid registration. The effectiveness of the alignment was assessed quantitatively using the DICE similarity coefficient. LV cavity volume changed more in the control group (ratio of cavity volume between ex-vivo and in-vivo imaging in control and experimental group 0.14 vs 0.56, p < 0.0001) and there was a significantly greater change in the short axis dimensions in the control group (ratio of short axis dimensions in control and experimental group 0.38 vs 0.79, p < 0.001). In the experimental group, prior to non-rigid co-registration the LV cavity contracted isotropically in the ex-vivo condition by less than 20% in each dimension. There was a significant proportional change in tissue thickness in the healthy myocardium (change = 29 ± 21%), but not in dense scar (change = - 2 ± 2%, p = 0.034). Following the non-rigid co-registration step of the process, the DICE similarity coefficients for the myocardium, LV cavity and scar were 0.93 (±0.02), 0.89 (±0.01) and 0.77 (±0.07) respectively and the myocardial tissue and LV cavity volumes had a ratio of 1.03 and 1.00 respectively. The pattern of the morphological changes seen between the in-vivo and the ex-vivo LV differs between scar and healthy myocardium. A 3D printed flexible scaffold based on the in-vivo shape of the LV cavity is an effective strategy to minimize morphological changes in the ex-vivo LV. The subsequent non-rigid registration step further improved the co-registration and local comparison between in-vivo and ex-vivo data.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Ex-vivo cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging has played an important role in the validation of in-vivo CMR characterization of pathological processes. However, comparison between in-vivo and ex-vivo imaging remains challenging due to shape changes occurring between the two states, which may be non-uniform across the diseased heart. A novel two-step process to facilitate registration between ex-vivo and in-vivo CMR was developed and evaluated in a porcine model of chronic myocardial infarction (MI).
METHODS
Seven weeks after ischemia-reperfusion MI, 12 swine underwent in-vivo CMR imaging with late gadolinium enhancement followed by ex-vivo CMR 1 week later. Five animals comprised the control group, in which ex-vivo imaging was undertaken without any support in the LV cavity, 7 animals comprised the experimental group, in which a two-step registration optimization process was undertaken. The first step involved a heart specific flexible 3D printed scaffold generated from in-vivo CMR, which was used to maintain left ventricular (LV) shape during ex-vivo imaging. In the second step, a non-rigid co-registration algorithm was applied to align in-vivo and ex-vivo data. Tissue dimension changes between in-vivo and ex-vivo imaging were compared between the experimental and control group. In the experimental group, tissue compartment volumes and thickness were compared between in-vivo and ex-vivo data before and after non-rigid registration. The effectiveness of the alignment was assessed quantitatively using the DICE similarity coefficient.
RESULTS
LV cavity volume changed more in the control group (ratio of cavity volume between ex-vivo and in-vivo imaging in control and experimental group 0.14 vs 0.56, p < 0.0001) and there was a significantly greater change in the short axis dimensions in the control group (ratio of short axis dimensions in control and experimental group 0.38 vs 0.79, p < 0.001). In the experimental group, prior to non-rigid co-registration the LV cavity contracted isotropically in the ex-vivo condition by less than 20% in each dimension. There was a significant proportional change in tissue thickness in the healthy myocardium (change = 29 ± 21%), but not in dense scar (change = - 2 ± 2%, p = 0.034). Following the non-rigid co-registration step of the process, the DICE similarity coefficients for the myocardium, LV cavity and scar were 0.93 (±0.02), 0.89 (±0.01) and 0.77 (±0.07) respectively and the myocardial tissue and LV cavity volumes had a ratio of 1.03 and 1.00 respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
The pattern of the morphological changes seen between the in-vivo and the ex-vivo LV differs between scar and healthy myocardium. A 3D printed flexible scaffold based on the in-vivo shape of the LV cavity is an effective strategy to minimize morphological changes in the ex-vivo LV. The subsequent non-rigid registration step further improved the co-registration and local comparison between in-vivo and ex-vivo data.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31597563
doi: 10.1186/s12968-019-0574-z
pii: 10.1186/s12968-019-0574-z
pmc: PMC6785908
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
62Subventions
Organisme : British Heart Foundation
ID : FS/18/27/33543
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Wellcome Trust (GB)
ID : WT 203148/Z/16/Z
Pays : International
Organisme : Department of Health
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : R01 HL129185
Pays : United States
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/N001877/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council (GB)
ID : MR/N001877/1
Pays : International
Références
Cell Physiol Biochem. 2010;25(4-5):419-24
pubmed: 20332622
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2014 Oct 01;16:74
pubmed: 25315015
Invest Radiol. 2017 Sep;52(9):507-513
pubmed: 28379863
J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2018 Jul-Sep;9(3):260-268
pubmed: 30202159
Med Phys. 2015 Aug;42(8):4579-90
pubmed: 26233186
Circulation. 1999 Nov 9;100(19):1992-2002
pubmed: 10556226
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1999 Aug;18(8):712-21
pubmed: 10534053
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2017 Jan 11;19(1):9
pubmed: 28122618
Microsc Microanal. 2017 Feb;23(1):77-87
pubmed: 28228173
Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2018 Jun;11(6):e006131
pubmed: 29880529
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2013 May;60(5):1308-17
pubmed: 23247842
Virchows Arch B Cell Pathol Incl Mol Pathol. 1981;35(2):159-67
pubmed: 6112814
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2016 Mar;140(3):212-20
pubmed: 26927715
Br J Radiol. 2004;77 Spec No 2:S140-53
pubmed: 15677356
Heart Rhythm. 2016 Oct;13(10):1993-2002
pubmed: 27392944
Clin Radiol. 2014 Oct;69(10):e398-403
pubmed: 25062923
Sci Rep. 2017 Dec 12;7(1):17387
pubmed: 29234002
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015 Dec;8(12):1379-1389
pubmed: 26699107
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004 Dec 21;44(12):2383-9
pubmed: 15607402
Circulation. 1991 Jul;84(1):387-99
pubmed: 2060109
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2017 Jan 30;19(1):12
pubmed: 28132648
Circulation. 2010 Jul 13;122(2):138-44
pubmed: 20585010
Heart Rhythm. 2016 Jan;13(1):262-73
pubmed: 26226214
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2016 May 04;18(1):27
pubmed: 27145749
J Digit Imaging. 2017 Feb;30(1):102-116
pubmed: 27730414
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015 Dec 29;66(25):2872-2882
pubmed: 26718674
Front Neuroinform. 2017 Mar 31;11:20
pubmed: 28408879
Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2017 Jul;10(7):
pubmed: 28696219
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010 Nov;3(6):743-52
pubmed: 20847191
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013 Mar 1;6(2):218-28
pubmed: 23403335
Microvasc Res. 2015 Jul;100:59-70
pubmed: 25963318
Ecology. 2015 Feb;96(2):575-86
pubmed: 26240877
Exp Physiol. 2013 Nov;98(11):1565-75
pubmed: 23955306
J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2019 Jan - Feb;13(1):21-30
pubmed: 30322772
IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 1987 May;9(5):698-700
pubmed: 21869429
Med Biol Eng Comput. 2010 Aug;48(8):735-44
pubmed: 20574721