Dataset Information

Validation and reproducibility of cardiovascular 4D-flow MRI from two vendors using 2?×?2 parallel imaging acceleration in pulsatile flow phantom and in vivo with and without respiratory gating.

ABSTRACT:

Background

4D-flow magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly used.

Purpose

To validate 4D-flow sequences in phantom and in vivo, comparing volume flow and kinetic energy (KE) head-to-head, with and without respiratory gating.

Material and methods

Achieva dStream (Philips Healthcare) and MAGNETOM Aera (Siemens Healthcare) 1.5-T scanners were used. Phantom validation measured pulsatile, three-dimensional flow with 4D-flow MRI and laser particle imaging velocimetry (PIV) as reference standard. Ten healthy participants underwent three cardiac MRI examinations each, consisting of cine-imaging, 2D-flow (aorta, pulmonary artery), and 2?×?2 accelerated 4D-flow with (Resp+) and without (Resp-) respiratory gating. Examinations were acquired consecutively on both scanners and one examination repeated within two weeks. Volume flow in the great vessels was compared between 2D- and 4D-flow. KE were calculated for all time phases and voxels in the left ventricle.

Results

Phantom results showed high accuracy and precision for both scanners. In vivo, higher accuracy and precision ( P?ConclusionSequence-specific in vivo validation of 4D-flow is needed before clinical use. 4D-flow with the Aera prototype sequence with a clinically acceptable acquisition time (<10 min) showed acceptable bias in healthy controls to be considered for clinical use. Intra-individual KE comparisons should use the same sequence.

SUBMITTER: Bock J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6402051 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Validation and reproducibility of cardiovascular 4D-flow MRI from two vendors using 2 × 2 parallel imaging acceleration in pulsatile flow phantom and in vivo with and without respiratory gating.

Bock Jelena J Töger Johannes J Bidhult Sebastian S Markenroth Bloch Karin K Arvidsson Per P Kanski Mikael M Arheden Håkan H Testud Frederik F Greiser Andreas A Heiberg Einar E Carlsson Marcus M

Acta radiologica (Stockholm, Sweden : 1987) 20180626 3

<h4>Background</h4>4D-flow magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly used.<h4>Purpose</h4>To validate 4D-flow sequences in phantom and in vivo, comparing volume flow and kinetic energy (KE) head-to-head, with and without respiratory gating.<h4>Material and methods</h4>Achieva dStream (Philips Healthcare) and MAGNETOM Aera (Siemens Healthcare) 1.5-T scanners were used. Phantom validation measured pulsatile, three-dimensional flow with 4D-flow MRI and laser particle imaging velocimetry (PIV ...[more]

PMID: 30479136

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHemodynamic aorta parameters can be derived from 4D flow MRI, but this requires lumen segmentation. In both commercially available and research 4D flow MRI software tools, lumen segmentation is mostly (semi-)automatically performed and subsequently manually improved by an observer. Since the segmentation variability, together with 4D flow MRI data and image processing algorithms, will contribute to the reproducibility of patient-specific flow properties, the observer's lumen segmentation reproducibility and repeatability needs to be assessed.PurposeTo determine the interexamination, interobserver reproducibility, and intraobserver repeatability of aortic lumen segmentation on 4D flow MRI.Study typeProspective and retrospective.PopulationA healthy volunteer cohort of 10 subjects who underwent 4D flow MRI twice. Also, a clinical cohort of six subjects who underwent 4D flow MRI once.Field strength/sequence3T; time-resolved three-directional and 3D velocity-encoded sequence (4D flow MRI).AssessmentThe thoracic aorta was segmented on the 4D flow MRI in five systolic phases. By positioning six planes perpendicular to a segmentation's centerline, the aorta was divided into five segments. The volume, surface area, centerline length, maximal diameter, and curvature radius were determined for each segment.Statistical testsTo assess the reproducibility, the coefficient of variation (COV), Pearson correlation coefficient (r), and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were calculated.ResultsThe interexamination and interobserver reproducibility and intraobserver repeatability were comparable for each parameter. For both cohorts there was very good reproducibility and repeatability for volume, surface area, and centerline length (COV = 10-32%, r = 0.54-0.95 and ICC = 0.65-0.99), excellent reproducibility and repeatability for maximal diameter (COV = 3-11%, r = 0.94-0.99, ICC = 0.94-0.99), and good reproducibility and repeatability for curvature radius (COV = 25-62%, r = 0.73-0.95, ICC = 0.84-0.97).Data conclusionThis study demonstrated no major reproducibility and repeatability limitations for 4D flow MRI aortic lumen segmentation.Level of evidence3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 2.

Project description:BackgroundRespiratory gating is generally recommended in 4D flow MRI of the heart to avoid blurring and motion artifacts. Recently, a novel automated contact-less camera-based respiratory motion sensor has been introduced.PurposeTo compare camera-based respiratory gating (CAM) with liver-lung-navigator-based gating (NAV) and no gating (NO) for whole-heart 4D flow MRI.Study typeRetrospective.SubjectsThirty two patients with a spectrum of cardiovascular diseases.Field strength/sequenceA 3T, 3D-cine spoiled-gradient-echo-T1-weighted-sequence with flow-encoding in three spatial directions.AssessmentRespiratory phases were derived and compared against each other by cross-correlation. Three radiologists/cardiologist scored images reconstructed with camera-based, navigator-based, and no respiratory gating with a 4-point Likert scale (qualitative analysis). Quantitative image quality analysis, in form of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and liver-lung-edge (LLE) for sharpness and quantitative flow analysis of the valves were performed semi-automatically.Statistical testsOne-way repeated measured analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Wilks's lambda testing and follow-up pairwise comparisons. Significance level of P ≤ 0.05. Krippendorff's-alpha-test for inter-rater reliability.ResultsThe respiratory signal analysis revealed that CAM and NAV phases were highly correlated (C = 0.93 ± 0.09, P < 0.01). Image scoring showed poor inter-rater reliability and no significant differences were observed (P ≥ 0.16). The image quality comparison showed that NAV and CAM were superior to NO with higher SNR (P = 0.02) and smaller LLE (P < 0.01). The quantitative flow analysis showed significant differences between the three respiratory-gated reconstructions in the tricuspid and pulmonary valves (P ≤ 0.05), but not in the mitral and aortic valves (P > 0.05). Pairwise comparisons showed that reconstructions without respiratory gating were different in flow measurements to either CAM or NAV or both, but no differences were found between CAM and NAV reconstructions.Data conclusionCamera-based respiratory gating performed as well as conventional liver-lung-navigator-based respiratory gating. Quantitative image quality analysis showed that both techniques were equivalent and superior to no-gating-reconstructions. Quantitative flow analysis revealed local flow differences (tricuspid/pulmonary valves) in images of no-gating-reconstructions, but no differences were found between images reconstructed with camera-based and navigator-based respiratory gating.Level of evidence3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the feasibility and performance of 4D flow MRI accelerated by compressed sensing (CS) for the hemodynamic quantification of intracranial artery and venous sinus.Materials and methodsForty healthy volunteers were prospectively recruited, and 20 volunteers underwent 4D flow MRI of cerebral artery, and the remaining volunteers underwent 4D flow MRI of venous sinus. A series of 4D flow MRI was acquired with different acceleration factors (AFs), including sensitivity encoding (SENSE, AF = 4) and CS (AF = CS4, CS6, CS8, and CS10) at a 3.0 T MRI scanner. The hemodynamic parameters, including flow rate, mean velocity, peak velocity, max axial wall shear stress (WSS), average axial WSS, max circumferential WSS, average circumferential WSS, and 3D WSS, were calculated at the internal carotid artery (ICA), transverse sinus (TS), straight sinus (SS), and superior sagittal sinus (SSS).ResultsCompared to the SENSE4 scan, for the left ICA C2, mean velocity measured by CS8 and CS10 groups, and 3D WSS measured by CS6, CS8, and CS10 groups were underestimated; for the right ICA C2, mean velocity measured by CS10 group, and 3D WSS measured by CS8 and CS10 groups were underestimated; for the right ICA C4, mean velocity measured by CS10 group, and 3D WSS measured by CS8 and CS10 groups were underestimated; and for the right ICA C7, mean velocity and 3D WSS measured by CS8 and CS10 groups, and average axial WSS measured by CS8 group were also underestimated (all p < 0.05). For the left TS, max axial WSS and 3D WSS measured by CS10 group were significantly underestimated (p = 0.032 and 0.003). Similarly, for SS, mean velocity, peak velocity, average axial WSS measured by the CS8 and CS10 groups, max axial WSS measured by CS6, CS8, and CS10 groups, and 3D WSS measured by CS10 group were significantly underestimated compared to the SENSE4 scan (p = 0.000-0.021). The hemodynamic parameters measured by CS4 group had only minimal bias and great limits of agreement compared to conventional 4D flow (SENSE4) in the ICA and every venous sinus (the max/min upper limit to low limit of the 95% limits of agreement = 11.4/0.03 to 0.004/-5.7, 14.4/0.05 to -0.03/-9.0, 12.6/0.04 to -0.03/-9.4, 16.8/0.04 to 0.6/-14.1; the max/min bias = 5.0/-1.2, 3.5/-1.4, 4.5/-1.1, 6.6/-4.0 for CS4, CS6, CS8, and CS10, respectively).ConclusionCS4 strikes a good balance in 4D flow between flow quantifications and scan time, which could be recommended for routine clinical use.