Key result
FPGA-based computing architecture accelerates 3D image registration ~40-fold over current techniques.
Why the study?
A fast and efficient technique of non-rigid image co-registration is required to enable real-time MRI-guided cardiac therapy, but current feature-based methods are sensitive to blurred low-resolution rtMRI images causing errors.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background Quantification of edema and scar maps with cardiac MR images (cMRIs) enables effective Radiofrequency Ablation (RFA) of arrhythmias during the Electrophysiology (EP) procedure [1]. This demonstrates the paramount advantage over the EP catheterization under X-ray and ultrasound guidance. High-contrast and resolution cMRIs can be obtained preoperatively as a EP roadmap for surgical planning of RFA, whilst real-time MRI (rtMRI) can be used to guide catheterization and update the cMRI model [2] to provide intraoperative visualization of a 3D vascular map. A fast and efficient technique of non-rigid image co-registration is required. Although feature-based registration methods can be rapidly processed by computing sparse features, the outcome is sensitive to blurred images with artifacts that happens regularly in low-resolution rt-MRI, causing significant errors in feature detections. With the use of Field-programmable Gate Array (FPGA), we hypothesized that novel data structure and architecture of memory access can allow robust registration based on comparison of image intensity patterns, thus fulfilling the real-time requirements for clinical practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kwok et al. (2014) studied Arrhythmias (MRI-guided cardiac therapy). FPGA-based computing architecture for 3D Demons image registration vs. GPU-based acceleration techniques was evaluated on Computational time for 3D image registration. The proposed FPGA-based computing architecture for 3D Demons image registration processed 3D images >40 times faster than state-of-the-art acceleration techniques, requiring <10 ms per trial.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: