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
(2018) In Acta Radiologica- 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... (More)
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 < 0.001) was found for volume flow for the Aera prototype with Resp+ (–3.7 ± 10.4 mL, r = 0.89) compared to the Achieva product sequence (–17.8 ± 18.6 mL, r = 0.56). 4D-flow Resp− on Aera had somewhat larger bias (–9.3 ± 9.6 mL, r = 0.90) compared to Resp+ (P = 0.005). KE measurements showed larger differences between scanners on the same day compared to the same scanner at different days. Conclusion: Sequence-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.
(Less)
- author
- organization
- publishing date
- 2018-06-26
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- 4D-flow, cardiac output, heart failure, valvular regurgitation
- in
- Acta Radiologica
- publisher
- SAGE Publications
- external identifiers
-
- pmid:30479136
- scopus:85049853998
- ISSN
- 0284-1851
- DOI
- 10.1177/0284185118784981
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- 50d81846-814d-4829-9285-c216c174f3ca
- date added to LUP
- 2018-07-31 10:11:40
- date last changed
- 2024-06-11 18:05:49
@article{50d81846-814d-4829-9285-c216c174f3ca, abstract = {{<p>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 < 0.001) was found for volume flow for the Aera prototype with Resp+ (–3.7 ± 10.4 mL, r = 0.89) compared to the Achieva product sequence (–17.8 ± 18.6 mL, r = 0.56). 4D-flow Resp− on Aera had somewhat larger bias (–9.3 ± 9.6 mL, r = 0.90) compared to Resp+ (P = 0.005). KE measurements showed larger differences between scanners on the same day compared to the same scanner at different days. Conclusion: Sequence-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.</p>}}, author = {{Bock, Jelena and Töger, Johannes and Bidhult, Sebastian and Markenroth Bloch, Karin and Arvidsson, Per and Kanski, Mikael and Arheden, Håkan and Testud, Frederik and Greiser, Andreas and Heiberg, Einar and Carlsson, Marcus}}, issn = {{0284-1851}}, keywords = {{4D-flow; cardiac output; heart failure; valvular regurgitation}}, language = {{eng}}, month = {{06}}, publisher = {{SAGE Publications}}, series = {{Acta Radiologica}}, title = {{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}}, url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0284185118784981}}, doi = {{10.1177/0284185118784981}}, year = {{2018}}, }