Advertisement

Registered 3D Tagged MRI and Ultrasound Myocardial Elastography: Quantitative Strain Comparison

  • Zhen QianEmail author
  • Wei-Ning Lee
  • Elisa E. Konofagou
  • Dimitris N. Metaxas
  • Leon Axel
Chapter

Abstract

Ultrasound myocardial elastography (UME) and tagged magnetic resonance imaging (tMRI) are two imaging modalities that were developed in the recent years to quantitatively estimate the myocardial deformations. Tagged MRI is currently considered as the gold standard for myocardial strain mapping in vivo. However, despite the low SNR nature of ultrasound signals, echocardiography enjoys the widespread availability in the clinic, as well as its low cost and high temporal resolution. Comparing the strain estimation performances of the two techniques has been of great interests to the community. In order to assess the cardiac deformation across different imaging modalities, in this chapter, we developed a semiautomatic intensity and gradient-based registration framework that rigidly registers the 3D tagged MRIs with the 2D ultrasound images. In addition, we introduced a series of Gabor filter bank-based tMRI image analysis techniques to remove tagging lines or grids, track tagging sheets, and estimate myocardial strain values in tMRI. Based on the two registered modalities, we conducted spatially and temporally more detailed quantitative strain comparison of the RF-based UME technique and tagged MRI. From the experimental results, we conclude that qualitatively the two modalities share similar overall trends. But error and variations in UME accumulate over time. Quantitatively tMRI is more robust and accurate than UME.

Keywords

Gabor Filter Circumferential Strain Myocardial Deformation Gaussian Envelope Harmonic Peak 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Konofagou EE, Dhhooge J, Ophir J (2002) Myocardial elastography – a feasibility study in vivo. Ultrasound Med Biol 28(4):475–482PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lee W-N, Ingrassia CM, Fung-Kee-Fung SD, Costa KD, Holmes JW, Konofagou EE (2007) Theoretical quality assessment of myocardial elastography with in vivo validation. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 54(11):2233–2245PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Notomi Y, Lysyansky P, Setser RM, Shiota T, Popovic ZB, Martin-Miklovic MG, Weaver JA, Oryszak SJ, Greenberg NL, White RD, Thomas JD (2005) Measurement of ventricular torsion by two-dimensional ultrasound speckle tracking imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol 45:2034–2041PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Helle-Valle T, Crosby J, Edvardsen T, Lyseggen E, Amundsen BH, Smith H-J, Rosen BD, Lima JAC, Torp H, Ihlen H, Smiseth OA (2005) New noninvasive method for assessment of left ventricular rotation – speckle tracking echocardiography. Circulation 112:3149–3156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cho GY, Chan J, Leano R, Strudwick M, Marwick TH (2006) Comparison of two-dimensional speckle and tissue velocity based strain and validation with harmonic phase magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Cardiol 97:1661–1666PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee W-N, Qian Z, Tosti CL, Brown TR, Metaxas DN, Konofagou EE (2008) Preliminary validation of angle-independent myocardial elastography using MR tagging in a clinical setting. Ultrasound Med Biol 34(12):1980–1997PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Makela T, Clarysse P, Sipilä O, Pauna N, Pham QC, Katila T, Magnin IE (2002) A review of cardiac image registration methods. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 21(9):1011–1021PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Roche A, Pennec X, Malandain G, Ayache N (2001) Rigid registration of 3D ultrasound with MR images: a new approach combining intensity and gradient information. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 20(10):1038–1049, PMID: 11686439PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Huang X, Hill NA, Ren J, Guiraudon G, Boughner D, Peters TM (2005) Dynamic 3D ultrasound and MR image registration of the beating heart. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv 8(Pt 2):171–178PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Manglik T, Axel L, Pai W, Kim D, Dugal P, Montillo A, Qian Z (2004) Use of bandpass gabor filters for enhancing blood-myocardium contrast and filling-in tags in tagged MR images. In: Proceedings of the international society for magnetic resonance in medicine, p 1793Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Daugman J (1985) Uncertainty relation for resolution in space, spatial frequency, and orientation optimized by two-dimensional visual cortical filters. J Opt Soc Am A 2(7):1160–1169PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dunn D, Higgins WE, Wakeley J (1994) Texture segmentation using 2-d gabor elementary functions. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 16:130–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lai WM (1993) Introduction to continuum mechanics, 3rd edn. Woburn, MA, Butterworth-HeinemannGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kallel F, Ophir J (1997) A least-squares strain estimator for elastography. Ultrasound Imaging 19:195208Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Qian Z, Metaxas D, Axel L (2006) Extraction and tracking of MRI tagging sheets using a 3D Gabor filter bank. In: Proceeding of the international conference of the engineering in medicine and biology societyGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Qian Z, Montillo A, Metaxas D, Axel L (2003) Segmenting cardiac MRI tagging lines using Gabor filter banks. In: Proceeding of the international conference of the engineering in medicine and biology society, pp 630–633Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zhen Qian
    • 1
    Email author
  • Wei-Ning Lee
  • Elisa E. Konofagou
  • Dimitris N. Metaxas
  • Leon Axel
  1. 1.Cardiovascular CT/MRI DivisionPiedmont Heart InstituteAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations