Skip to main content

Lund University Publications

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Independent validation of four-dimensional flow MR velocities and vortex ring volume using particle imaging velocimetry and planar laser-Induced fluorescence. : Validation of 4D Flow using PIV and PLIF

Töger, Johannes LU ; Bidhult, Sebastian LU ; Revstedt, Johan LU ; Carlsson, Marcus LU ; Arheden, Håkan LU and Heiberg, Einar LU (2016) In Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 75(3). p.1064-1075
Abstract
PURPOSE:
This study aimed to: (i) present and characterize a phantom setup for validation of four-dimensional (4D) flow using particle imaging velocimetry (PIV) and planar laser-induced fluorescence (PLIF); (ii) validate 4D flow velocity measurements using PIV; and (iii) validate 4D flow vortex ring volume (VV) using PLIF.

METHODS:
A pulsatile pump and a tank with a 25-mm nozzle were constructed. PIV measurements (1.5 × 1.5 mm pixels, temporal resolution 10 ms) were obtained on two occasions. The 4D flow (3 × 3 × 3 mm voxels, temporal resolution 50 ms) was acquired using SENSE = 2. VV was quantified using PLIF and 4D flow.

RESULTS:
PIV showed excellent day-to-day stability (R(2) = 0.99, bias -0.04 ± 0.72... (More)
PURPOSE:
This study aimed to: (i) present and characterize a phantom setup for validation of four-dimensional (4D) flow using particle imaging velocimetry (PIV) and planar laser-induced fluorescence (PLIF); (ii) validate 4D flow velocity measurements using PIV; and (iii) validate 4D flow vortex ring volume (VV) using PLIF.

METHODS:
A pulsatile pump and a tank with a 25-mm nozzle were constructed. PIV measurements (1.5 × 1.5 mm pixels, temporal resolution 10 ms) were obtained on two occasions. The 4D flow (3 × 3 × 3 mm voxels, temporal resolution 50 ms) was acquired using SENSE = 2. VV was quantified using PLIF and 4D flow.

RESULTS:
PIV showed excellent day-to-day stability (R(2) = 0.99, bias -0.04 ± 0.72 cm/s). The 4D flow mean velocities agreed well with PIV (R(2) = 0.95, bias 0.16 ± 2.65 cm/s). Peak velocities in 4D flow were underestimated by 7-18% compared with PIV (y = 0.79x + 2.7, R(2) = 0.96, -12 ± 5%). VV showed excellent agreement between PLIF and 4D flow (R(2) = 0.99, 2.4 ± 1.5 mL).

CONCLUSION:
This study shows: (i) The proposed phantom enables reliable validation of 4D flow. (ii) 4D flow velocities show good agreement with PIV, but peak velocities were underestimated due to low spatial and temporal resolution. (iii) Vortex ring volume (VV) can be quantified using 4D flow. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
; ; ; ; and
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
in
Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
volume
75
issue
3
pages
1064 - 1075
publisher
John Wiley & Sons Inc.
external identifiers
  • pmid:25940239
  • scopus:84928726535
  • wos:000370593700013
  • pmid:25940239
ISSN
1522-2594
DOI
10.1002/mrm.25683
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
06c8a325-d2db-43bc-8fb7-5e5e910841d4 (old id 5457379)
alternative location
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25940239?dopt=Abstract
date added to LUP
2016-04-04 08:55:11
date last changed
2022-04-15 21:12:51
@article{06c8a325-d2db-43bc-8fb7-5e5e910841d4,
  abstract     = {{PURPOSE:<br/>This study aimed to: (i) present and characterize a phantom setup for validation of four-dimensional (4D) flow using particle imaging velocimetry (PIV) and planar laser-induced fluorescence (PLIF); (ii) validate 4D flow velocity measurements using PIV; and (iii) validate 4D flow vortex ring volume (VV) using PLIF.<br/><br/>METHODS:<br/>A pulsatile pump and a tank with a 25-mm nozzle were constructed. PIV measurements (1.5 × 1.5 mm pixels, temporal resolution 10 ms) were obtained on two occasions. The 4D flow (3 × 3 × 3 mm voxels, temporal resolution 50 ms) was acquired using SENSE = 2. VV was quantified using PLIF and 4D flow.<br/><br/>RESULTS:<br/>PIV showed excellent day-to-day stability (R(2) = 0.99, bias -0.04 ± 0.72 cm/s). The 4D flow mean velocities agreed well with PIV (R(2) = 0.95, bias 0.16 ± 2.65 cm/s). Peak velocities in 4D flow were underestimated by 7-18% compared with PIV (y = 0.79x + 2.7, R(2) = 0.96, -12 ± 5%). VV showed excellent agreement between PLIF and 4D flow (R(2) = 0.99, 2.4 ± 1.5 mL).<br/><br/>CONCLUSION:<br/>This study shows: (i) The proposed phantom enables reliable validation of 4D flow. (ii) 4D flow velocities show good agreement with PIV, but peak velocities were underestimated due to low spatial and temporal resolution. (iii) Vortex ring volume (VV) can be quantified using 4D flow.}},
  author       = {{Töger, Johannes and Bidhult, Sebastian and Revstedt, Johan and Carlsson, Marcus and Arheden, Håkan and Heiberg, Einar}},
  issn         = {{1522-2594}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  month        = {{03}},
  number       = {{3}},
  pages        = {{1064--1075}},
  publisher    = {{John Wiley & Sons Inc.}},
  series       = {{Magnetic Resonance in Medicine}},
  title        = {{Independent validation of four-dimensional flow MR velocities and vortex ring volume using particle imaging velocimetry and planar laser-Induced fluorescence. : Validation of 4D Flow using PIV and PLIF}},
  url          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mrm.25683}},
  doi          = {{10.1002/mrm.25683}},
  volume       = {{75}},
  year         = {{2016}},
}