Retrospective motion correction through multi-average k-space data elimination (REMAKE) for free-breathing cardiac cine imaging
Alexander Paul Neofytou, Radhouene Neji, Grzegorz Tomasz Kowalik, Ronald Mooiweer, James Wong, Anastasia Fotaki, Joana Ferreira, Carl Evans, Filippo Bosio, Nabila Mughal, Reza Razavi, Kuberan Pushparajah, Sébastien Roujol
Abstract
Purpose
To develop a motion-robust reconstruction technique for free-breathing cine imaging with multiple averages.
Method
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.
Results
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).
Conclusions
Compared to “standard” signal averaging reconstruction, REMAKE and REMAKE+ provide improved myocardial sharpness, image quality, and rate of diagnostic quality images.