Retrospective motion correction through multi-average k-space data elimination (REMAKE) for free-breathing cardiac cine imaging.
2D cine
cardiac MRI
free-breathing
retrospective respiratory motion correction
Journal
Magnetic resonance in medicine
ISSN: 1522-2594
Titre abrégé: Magn Reson Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8505245
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2023
06 2023
Historique:
revised:
06
01
2023
received:
06
10
2022
accepted:
20
01
2023
medline:
28
3
2023
pubmed:
11
2
2023
entrez:
10
2
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To develop a motion-robust reconstruction technique for free-breathing cine imaging with multiple averages. Retrospective motion correction through multiple average k-space data elimination (REMAKE) was developed using iterative removal of k-space segments (from individual k-space samples) that contribute most to motion corruption while combining any remaining segments across multiple signal averages. A variant of REMAKE, termed REMAKE+, was developed to address any losses in SNR due to k-space information removal. With REMAKE+, multiple reconstructions using different initial conditions were performed, co-registered, and averaged. Both techniques were validated against clinical "standard" signal averaging reconstruction in a static phantom (with simulated motion) and 15 patients undergoing free-breathing cine imaging with multiple averages. Quantitative analysis of myocardial sharpness, blood/myocardial SNR, myocardial-blood contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), as well as subjective assessment of image quality and rate of diagnostic quality images were performed. In phantom, motion artifacts using "standard" (RMS error [RMSE]: 2.2 ± 0.5) were substantially reduced using REMAKE/REMAKE+ (RMSE: 1.5 ± 0.4/1.0 ± 0.4, p < 0.01). In patients, REMAKE/REMAKE+ led to higher myocardial sharpness (0.79 ± 0.09/0.79 ± 0.1 vs. 0.74 ± 0.12 for "standard", p = 0.004/0.04), higher image quality (1.8 ± 0.2/1.9 ± 0.2 vs. 1.6 ± 0.4 for "standard", p = 0.02/0.008), and a higher rate of diagnostic quality images (99%/100% vs. 94% for "standard"). Blood/myocardial SNR for "standard" (94 ± 30/33 ± 10) was higher vs. REMAKE (80 ± 25/28 ± 8, p = 0.002/0.005) and tended to be lower vs. REMAKE+ (105 ± 33/36 ± 12, p = 0.02/0.06). Myocardial-blood CNR for "standard" (61 ± 22) was higher vs. REMAKE (53 ± 19, p = 0.003) and lower vs. REMAKE+ (69 ± 24, p = 0.007). Compared to "standard" signal averaging reconstruction, REMAKE and REMAKE+ provide improved myocardial sharpness, image quality, and rate of diagnostic quality images.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2242-2254Subventions
Organisme : British Heart Foundation
ID : PG/19/11/34243
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : British Heart Foundation
ID : PG/21/10539
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : 203148/Z/16/Z
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.
Références
Circulation. 1987 Jul;76(1):44-51
pubmed: 3594774
Magn Reson Med. 2008 Apr;59(4):771-8
pubmed: 18302227
Magn Reson Med. 2018 Feb;79(2):826-838
pubmed: 28497486
Magn Reson Med. 2001 Feb;45(2):346-8
pubmed: 11180443
Magn Reson Imaging. 2017 May;38:129-137
pubmed: 28034638
Neuroimage. 2009 Mar;45(1 Suppl):S61-72
pubmed: 19041946
Magn Reson Med. 2014 Aug;72(2):347-61
pubmed: 24006292
Open Heart. 2016 Apr 27;3(1):e000388
pubmed: 27158524
Magn Reson Med. 2005 Jan;53(1):194-200
pubmed: 15690519
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2016 Sep 22;18(1):58
pubmed: 27660042
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2013 Nov 14;15:102
pubmed: 24228930
J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2011 May-Jun;35(3):382-6
pubmed: 21586935
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012 Sep;36(3):511-28
pubmed: 22903653
Magn Reson Med. 2009 Dec;62(6):1557-64
pubmed: 19780155
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2020 Apr;21(4):68-79
pubmed: 32166850
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2020 Dec 14;22(1):87
pubmed: 33308262
Magn Reson Med. 2015 Nov;74(5):1306-16
pubmed: 25376772
Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2018 Mar;8(2):196-208
pubmed: 29675361
Magn Reson Med. 2018 Jul;80(1):181-189
pubmed: 29222852
Magn Reson Med. 2005 Jan;53(1):159-68
pubmed: 15690515
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003 Aug 20;42(4):736-42
pubmed: 12932612
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019 May;212(5):1024-1029
pubmed: 30835515
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2013 Jun 13;15:51
pubmed: 23763839
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2016 Feb 25;18:10
pubmed: 26915830
Magn Reson Med. 2007 Mar;57(3):606-13
pubmed: 17326164
Magn Reson Med. 2008 Sep;60(3):709-17
pubmed: 18727100
Magn Reson Med. 2008 Mar;59(3):463-8
pubmed: 18306398
Card Fail Rev. 2016 Nov;2(2):115-122
pubmed: 28785465
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2017 Feb 3;19(1):18
pubmed: 28178995
Magn Reson Med. 2019 Aug;82(2):706-720
pubmed: 31006916
Sci Rep. 2020 Aug 13;10(1):13710
pubmed: 32792507
Magn Reson Med. 2012 Sep;68(3):741-50
pubmed: 22190255
Magn Reson Med. 2009 Dec;62(6):1658-64
pubmed: 19902515
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2020 Feb 24;22(1):17
pubmed: 32089132
Magn Reson Med. 2013 Jan;69(1):91-102
pubmed: 22392604
Magn Reson Med. 2023 Jun;89(6):2242-2254
pubmed: 36763898
Magn Reson Med. 2000 Dec;44(6):940-6
pubmed: 11108632
J Radiat Res. 2012 Nov 1;53(6):945-53
pubmed: 22966173
Magn Reson Med. 2017 Aug;78(2):472-483
pubmed: 27529745
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2016 Aug 24;18(1):50
pubmed: 27553656
Echo Res Pract. 2019 Oct 1;:
pubmed: 31730044
Magn Reson Med. 2021 May;85(5):2403-2416
pubmed: 33226699
Magn Reson Med. 2014 Nov;72(5):1208-17
pubmed: 25216287
NMR Biomed. 2021 Feb;34(2):e4433
pubmed: 33258197
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014 Sep;7(9):882-92
pubmed: 25129517
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009 May;192(5):1348-58
pubmed: 19380560
Magn Reson Med. 2011 Apr;65(4):1097-102
pubmed: 21413074
Magn Reson Med. 2013 Oct;70(4):1005-15
pubmed: 23132549