Garg, P. orcid.org/0000-0002-5483-169X, Westenberg, J.J.M., van den Boogaard, P.J. et al. (11 more authors)
(2018)
Comparison of fast acquisition strategies in whole-heart four-dimensional flow cardiac MR: Two-center, 1.5 Tesla, phantom and in vivo validation study.
Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging , 47 (1).
pp. 272-281.
ISSN 1053-1807
Abstract
Purpose To validate three widely‐used acceleration methods in four‐dimensional (4D) flow cardiac MR; segmented 4D‐spoiled‐gradient‐echo (4D‐SPGR), 4D‐echo‐planar‐imaging (4D‐EPI), and 4D‐k‐t Broad‐use Linear Acquisition Speed‐up Technique (4D‐k‐t BLAST).
Materials and Methods Acceleration methods were investigated in static/pulsatile phantoms and 25 volunteers on 1.5 Tesla MR systems. In phantoms, flow was quantified by 2D phase‐contrast (PC), the three 4D flow methods and the time‐beaker flow measurements. The later was used as the reference method. Peak velocity and flow assessment was done by means of all sequences. For peak velocity assessment 2D PC was used as the reference method. For flow assessment, consistency between mitral inflow and aortic outflow was investigated for all pulse‐sequences. Visual grading of image quality/artifacts was performed on a four‐point‐scale (0 = no artifacts; 3 = nonevaluable).
Results For the pulsatile phantom experiments, the mean error for 2D PC = 1.0 ± 1.1%, 4D‐SPGR = 4.9 ± 1.3%, 4D‐EPI = 7.6 ± 1.3% and 4D‐k‐t BLAST = 4.4 ± 1.9%. In vivo, acquisition time was shortest for 4D‐EPI (4D‐EPI = 8 ± 2 min versus 4D‐SPGR = 9 ± 3 min, P < 0.05 and 4D‐k‐t BLAST = 9 ± 3 min, P = 0.29). 4D‐EPI and 4D‐k‐t BLAST had minimal artifacts, while for 4D‐SPGR, 40% of aortic valve/mitral valve (AV/MV) assessments scored 3 (nonevaluable). Peak velocity assessment using 4D‐EPI demonstrated best correlation to 2D PC (AV:r = 0.78, P < 0.001; MV:r = 0.71, P < 0.001). Coefficient of variability (CV) for net forward flow (NFF) volume was least for 4D‐EPI (7%) (2D PC:11%, 4D‐SPGR: 29%, 4D‐k‐t BLAST: 30%, respectively).
Conclusion In phantom, all 4D flow techniques demonstrated mean error of less than 8%. 4D‐EPI demonstrated the least susceptibility to artifacts, good image quality, modest agreement with the current reference standard for peak intra‐cardiac velocities and the highest consistency of intra‐cardiac flow quantifications.
Level of Evidence: 1
Technical Efficacy: Stage 2
Metadata
Item Type: | Article |
---|---|
Authors/Creators: | This paper has 14 authors. You can scroll the list below to see them all or them all.
|
Copyright, Publisher and Additional Information: | © 2017 The Authors Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) |
Keywords: | 4D flow cardiac MR; phase-contrast magnetic resonance imaging; MR flow imaging; flow quantification; validation |
Dates: |
|
Institution: | The University of Sheffield |
Academic Units: | The University of Sheffield > Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health (Sheffield) |
Depositing User: | Symplectic Sheffield |
Date Deposited: | 17 May 2018 09:11 |
Last Modified: | 17 May 2018 09:14 |
Published Version: | https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25746 |
Status: | Published |
Publisher: | Wiley |
Identification Number: | 10.1002/jmri.25746 |
Related URLs: | |
Open Archives Initiative ID (OAI ID): | oai:eprints.whiterose.ac.uk:130155 |