Advanced

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; Töger, Johannes LU ; Bidhult, Sebastian LU ; Markenroth Bloch, Karin LU ; Arvidsson, Per LU ; Kanski, Mikael LU ; Arheden, Håkan LU ; Testud, Frederik LU ; Greiser, Andreas and Heiberg, Einar LU , et al. (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)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
, et al. (More)
(Less)
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
epub
subject
keywords
4D-flow, cardiac output, heart failure, valvular regurgitation
in
Acta Radiologica
publisher
John Wiley & Sons
external identifiers
  • 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
2019-03-19 03:57:48
@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 &lt; 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 (&lt;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},
  keyword      = {4D-flow,cardiac output,heart failure,valvular regurgitation},
  language     = {eng},
  month        = {01},
  publisher    = {John Wiley & Sons},
  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},
  year         = {2018},
}