Evaluating a Phase‐Specific Approach to Aortic Flow: A 4D Flow MRI Study

Author:

Ramaekers Mitch J.F.G.1234ORCID,Westenberg Jos J.M.4ORCID,Venner Max F.G.H.M.2,Juffermans Joe F.4ORCID,van Assen Hans C.4ORCID,te Kiefte Bastiaan J.C.4,Adriaans Bouke P.12ORCID,Lamb Hildo J.4ORCID,Wildberger Joachim E.13,Schalla Simon23

Affiliation:

1. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine Maastricht University Medical Center+ Maastricht The Netherlands

2. Department of Cardiology Maastricht University Medical Center+ Maastricht The Netherlands

3. Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht (CARIM) Maastricht The Netherlands

4. Department of Radiology Leiden University Medical Center Leiden The Netherlands

Abstract

BackgroundAortic flow parameters can be quantified using 4D flow MRI. However, data are sparse on how different methods of analysis influence these parameters and how these parameters evolve during systole.PurposeTo assess multiphase segmentations and multiphase quantification of flow‐related parameters in aortic 4D flow MRI.Study TypeProspective.Population40 healthy volunteers (50% male, 28.9 ± 5.0 years) and 10 patients with thoracic aortic aneurysm (80% male, 54 ± 8 years).Field Strength/Sequence4D flow MRI with a velocity encoded turbo field echo sequence at 3 T.AssessmentPhase‐specific segmentations were obtained for the aortic root and the ascending aorta. The whole aorta was segmented in peak systole. In all aortic segments, time to peak (TTP; for flow velocity, vorticity, helicity, kinetic energy, and viscous energy loss) and peak and time‐averaged values (for velocity and vorticity) were calculated.Statistical TestsStatic vs. phase‐specific models were assessed using Bland–Altman plots. Other analyses were performed using phase‐specific segmentations for aortic root and ascending aorta. TTP for all parameters was compared to TTP of flow rate using paired t‐tests. Time‐averaged and peak values were assessed using Pearson correlation coefficient. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.ResultsIn the combined group, velocity in static vs. phase‐specific segmentations differed by 0.8 cm/sec for the aortic root, and 0.1 cm/sec (P = 0.214) for the ascending aorta. Vorticity differed by 167 sec−1 mL−1 (P = 0.468) for the aortic root, and by 59 sec−1 mL−1 (P = 0.481) for the ascending aorta. Vorticity, helicity, and energy loss in the ascending aorta, aortic arch, and descending aorta peaked significantly later than flow rate. Time‐averaged velocity and vorticity values correlated significantly in all segments.Data ConclusionStatic 4D flow MRI segmentation yields comparable results as multiphase segmentation for flow‐related parameters, eliminating the need for time‐consuming multiple segmentations. However, multiphase quantification is necessary for assessing peak values of aortic flow‐related parameters.Level of Evidence2Technical Efficacy Stage3

Funder

Hartstichting

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3