Dataset Information

Automated mitral valve vortex ring extraction from 4D-flow MRI.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:To present and validate a method for automated extraction and analysis of the temporal evolution of the mitral valve (MV) vortex ring from MR 4D-flow data. METHODS:The proposed algorithm uses the divergence-free part of the velocity vector field for Q criterion-based identification and tracking of MV vortex ring core and region within the left ventricle (LV). The 4D-flow data of 20 subjects (10 healthy controls, 10 patients with ischemic heart disease) were used to validate the algorithm against visual analysis as well as to assess the method's sensitivity to manual LV segmentation. Quantitative MV vortex ring parameters were analyzed with respect to both their differences between healthy subjects and patients and their correlation with transmitral peak velocities. RESULTS:The algorithm successfully extracted MV vortex rings throughout the entire cardiac cycle, which agreed substantially with visual analysis (Cohen's kappa = 0.77). Furthermore, vortex cores and regions were robustly detected even if a static end-diastolic LV segmentation mask was applied to all frames (Dice coefficients 0.82 ± 0.08 and 0.94 ± 0.02 for core and region, respectively). Early diastolic MV vortex ring vorticity, kinetic energy and circularity index differed significantly between healthy controls and patients. In contrast to vortex shape parameters, vorticity and kinetic energy correlated strongly with transmitral peak velocities. CONCLUSION:An automated method for temporal MV vortex ring extraction demonstrating robustness with respect to LV segmentation strategies is introduced. Quantitative vortex parameter analysis indicates importance of the MV vortex ring for LV diastolic (dys)function.

SUBMITTER: Krauter C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7540523 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Automated mitral valve vortex ring extraction from 4D-flow MRI.

Kräuter Corina C Reiter Ursula U Reiter Clemens C Nizhnikava Volha V Masana Marc M Schmidt Albrecht A Fuchsjäger Michael M Stollberger Rudolf R Reiter Gert G

Magnetic resonance in medicine 20200618 6

<h4>Purpose</h4>To present and validate a method for automated extraction and analysis of the temporal evolution of the mitral valve (MV) vortex ring from MR 4D-flow data.<h4>Methods</h4>The proposed algorithm uses the divergence-free part of the velocity vector field for Q criterion-based identification and tracking of MV vortex ring core and region within the left ventricle (LV). The 4D-flow data of 20 subjects (10 healthy controls, 10 patients with ischemic heart disease) were used to validat ...[more]

PMID: 32557819

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo compare the accuracy of semiautomated flow tracking with that of semiautomated valve tracking in the quantification of mitral valve (MV) regurgitation from clinical four-dimensional (4D) flow MRI data obtained in patients with mild, moderate, or severe MV regurgitation.Materials and methodsThe 4D flow MRI data were retrospectively collected from 30 patients (21 men; mean age, 61 years ± 10 [standard deviation]) who underwent 4D flow MRI from 2006 to 2016. Ten patients had mild MV regurgitation, nine had moderate MV regurgitation, and 11 had severe MV regurgitation, as diagnosed by using semiquantitative echocardiography. The regurgitant volume (Rvol) across the MV was obtained using three methods: indirect quantification of Rvol (RvolINDIRECT), semiautomated quantification of Rvol using valve tracking (RvolVALVE), and semiautomated quantification of Rvol using flow tracking (RvolFLOW). A second observer repeated the measurements. Aortic valve flow was quantified as well to test for intervalve consistency. The Wilcoxon signed rank test, orthogonal regression, Bland-Altman analysis, and coefficients of variation were used to assess agreement among measurements and between observers.ResultsRvolFLOW was higher (median, 24.8 mL; interquartile range [IQR], 14.3-45.7 mL) than RvolVALVE (median, 9.9 mL; IQR, 6.0-16.9 mL; P < .001). Both RvolFLOW and RvolVALVE differed significantly from RvolINDIRECT (median, 19.1 mL; IQR, 4.1-47.5 mL; P = .03). RvolFLOW agreed more with RvolINDIRECT (ŷ = 0.78x + 12, r = 0.88) than with RvolVALVE (ŷ = 0.16x + 8.1, r = 0.53). Bland-Altman analysis revealed underestimation of RvolVALVE in severe MV regurgitation. Interobserver agreement was excellent for RvolFLOW (r = 0.95, coefficient of variation = 27%) and moderate for RvolVALVE (r = 0.72, coefficient of variation = 57%). Orthogonal regression demonstrated better intervalve consistency for flow tracking (ŷ = 1.2x - 13.4, r = 0.82) than for valve tracking (ŷ = 2.7x - 92.4, r = 0.67).ConclusionFlow tracking enables more accurate 4D flow MRI-derived MV regurgitation quantification than valve tracking in terms of agreement with indirect quantification and intervalve consistency, particularly in severe MV regurgitation.Supplemental material is available for this article.© RSNA, 2020.

Project description:PurposeTo generate fully automated and fast 4D-flow MRI-based 3D segmentations of the aorta using deep learning for reproducible quantification of aortic flow, peak velocity, and dimensions.MethodsA total of 1018 subjects with aortic 4D-flow MRI (528 with bicuspid aortic valve, 376 with tricuspid aortic valve and aortic dilation, 114 healthy controls) comprised the data set. A convolutional neural network was trained to generate 3D aortic segmentations from 4D-flow data. Manual segmentations served as the ground truth (N = 499 training, N = 101 validation, N = 418 testing). Dice scores, Hausdorff distance, and average symmetrical surface distance were calculated to assess performance. Aortic flow, peak velocity, and lumen dimensions were quantified at the ascending, arch, and descending aorta and compared using Bland-Altman analysis. Interobserver variability of manual analysis was assessed on a subset of 40.ResultsConvolutional neural network segmentation required 0.438 ± 0.355 seconds versus 630 ± 254 seconds for manual analysis and demonstrated excellent performance with a median Dice score of 0.951 (0.930-0.966), Hausdorff distance of 2.80 (2.13-4.35), and average symmetrical surface distance of 0.176 (0.119-0.290). Excellent agreement was found for flow, peak velocity, and dimensions with low bias and limits of agreement less than 10% difference versus manual analysis. For aortic volume, limits of agreement were moderate within 16.3%. Interobserver variability (median Dice score: 0.950; Hausdorff distance: 2.45; and average symmetrical surface distance: 0.145) and convolutional neural network-based analysis (median Dice score: 0.953-0.959; Hausdorff distance: 2.24-2.91; and average symmetrical surface distance: 0.145-1.98 to observers) demonstrated similar reproducibility.ConclusionsDeep learning enabled fast and automated 3D aortic segmentation from 4D-flow MRI, demonstrating its potential for efficient clinical workflows. Future studies should investigate its utility for other vasculature and multivendor applications.

Project description:BackgroundMeasurement of peak velocities is important in the evaluation of heart failure. This study compared the performance of automated 4D flow cardiac MRI (CMR) with traditional transthoracic Doppler echocardiography (TTE) for the measurement of mitral inflow peak diastolic velocities.MethodsPatients with Doppler echocardiography and 4D flow cardiac magnetic resonance data were included retrospectively. An established automated technique was used to segment the left ventricular transvalvular flow using short-axis cine stack of images. Peak mitral E-wave and peak mitral A-wave velocities were automatically derived using in-plane velocity maps of transvalvular flow. Additionally, we checked the agreement between peak mitral E-wave velocity derived by 4D flow CMR and Doppler echocardiography in patients with sinus rhythm and atrial fibrillation (AF) separately.ResultsForty-eight patients were included (median age 69 years, IQR 63 to 76; 46% female). Data were split into three groups according to heart rhythm. The median peak E-wave mitral inflow velocity by automated 4D flow CMR was comparable with Doppler echocardiography in all patients (0.90 ± 0.43 m/s vs 0.94 ± 0.48 m/s, P = 0.132), sinus rhythm-only group (0.88 ± 0.35 m/s vs 0.86 ± 0.38 m/s, P = 0.54) and in AF-only group (1.33 ± 0.56 m/s vs 1.18 ± 0.47 m/s, P = 0.06). Peak A-wave mitral inflow velocity results had no significant difference between Doppler TTE and automated 4D flow CMR (0.81 ± 0.44 m/s vs 0.81 ± 0.53 m/s, P = 0.09) in all patients and sinus rhythm-only groups. Automated 4D flow CMR showed a significant correlation with TTE for measurement of peak E-wave in all patients group (r = 0.73, P < 0.001) and peak A-wave velocities (r = 0.88, P < 0.001). Moreover, there was a significant correlation between automated 4D flow CMR and TTE for peak-E wave velocity in sinus rhythm-only patients (r = 0.68, P < 0.001) and AF-only patients (r = 0.81, P = 0.014). Excellent intra-and inter-observer variability was demonstrated for both parameters.ConclusionAutomated dynamic peak mitral inflow diastolic velocity tracing using 4D flow CMR is comparable to Doppler echocardiography and has excellent repeatability for clinical use. However, 4D flow CMR can potentially underestimate peak velocity in patients with AF.

Dataset Information

Automated mitral valve vortex ring extraction from 4D-flow MRI.

Publications

Automated mitral valve vortex ring extraction from 4D-flow MRI.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets