Pulsed wave Doppler ultrasound: Accuracy, variability, and impact of acquisition parameters on flow measurements

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundPulsed wave Doppler ultrasound is a useful modality for assessing vascular health as it quantifies blood flow characteristics. To facilitate accurate diagnosis, accuracy and consistency of this modality should be assessed through Doppler quality assurance (QA).PurposeThe purpose of this study was to characterize the accuracy, reproducibility, and inter‐scanner variability of ultrasound flow velocity measurements via a flow phantom, with a focus on the effect of systematic acquisition parameters on measured flow velocity accuracy.MethodsUsing a manufacturer‐calibrated flow phantom, pulsed wave measurements were acquired on five clinical systems (iU22, Philips) with three models of transducers, including both linear and curvilinear models. The peak and mean flow velocities were estimated by vendor‐supplied spectral analysis tools. To investigate intra‐ and inter‐scanner variability, measurements were repeated using each scanner‐transducer pair under a standardized set of conditions. Inter‐scanner variability was assessed using ANOVA. Flow velocity accuracy was investigated by mean absolute percentage error. The impacts of receive gain, measurement depth, and beam steering on measured flow velocity accuracy were examined by varying each parameter over its available range and comparing to the ground truth flow velocity.ResultsInter‐scanner variability was statistically significant for peak flow measurements made using both linear and curvilinear transducers, though absolute differences in measured velocity were small. Inter‐scanner variability was not statistically significant for mean flow velocity. Receive gain, measurement depth, and beam steering were all found to impact the accuracy of measured flow characteristics for linear transducers. Accuracy of the flow measurements made with the curvilinear transducer demonstrated high consistency to changes in receive gain at a constant depth, though were impacted by increasing the measurement depth.ConclusionsCarefully and consistently selected acquisition and set‐up parameters are essential in order to establish a reliable and meaningful QA program.