Validation of two accelerated 4D flow MRI sequences at 3 T: a phantom study.

Four-dimensional (4D) flow Magnetic resonance imaging Phantoms (imaging) Pulsatile flow Reproducibility of results

Journal

European radiology experimental
ISSN: 2509-9280
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol Exp
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101721752

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
26 Feb 2019
Historique:
received: 02 10 2018
accepted: 01 02 2019
entrez: 27 2 2019
pubmed: 27 2 2019
medline: 27 2 2019
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Four-dimensional (4D) flow magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequences with advanced parallel imaging have the potential to reduce scan time with equivalent image quality and accuracy compared with standard two-dimensional (2D) flow MRI. We compared 4D flow to standard 2D flow sequences using a constant and pulsatile flow phantom at 3 T. Two accelerated 4D flow sequences (GRAPPA2 and k-t-GRAPPA5) were evaluated regarding the concordance of flow volumes, flow velocities, and reproducibility as well as dependency on measuring plane and velocity encoding (V No significant differences in flow volume were found between the 2D, both 4D flow MRI sequences, and the pump reference (p = 0.994) or flow velocities (p = 0.998) in continuous and pulsatile flow. An excellent correlation (R = 0.99-1.0) with a reference standard and excellent reproducibility of measurements (R = 0.99) was achieved for all sequences. A V Both 4D flow sequences demonstrated equal agreement with 2D flow measurements, without impact of V

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Four-dimensional (4D) flow magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequences with advanced parallel imaging have the potential to reduce scan time with equivalent image quality and accuracy compared with standard two-dimensional (2D) flow MRI. We compared 4D flow to standard 2D flow sequences using a constant and pulsatile flow phantom at 3 T.
METHODS METHODS
Two accelerated 4D flow sequences (GRAPPA2 and k-t-GRAPPA5) were evaluated regarding the concordance of flow volumes, flow velocities, and reproducibility as well as dependency on measuring plane and velocity encoding (V
RESULTS RESULTS
No significant differences in flow volume were found between the 2D, both 4D flow MRI sequences, and the pump reference (p = 0.994) or flow velocities (p = 0.998) in continuous and pulsatile flow. An excellent correlation (R = 0.99-1.0) with a reference standard and excellent reproducibility of measurements (R = 0.99) was achieved for all sequences. A V
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Both 4D flow sequences demonstrated equal agreement with 2D flow measurements, without impact of V

Identifiants

pubmed: 30806827
doi: 10.1186/s41747-019-0089-2
pii: 10.1186/s41747-019-0089-2
pmc: PMC6391502
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

10

Subventions

Organisme : Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
ID : GU 777/4-1-AOBJ 629068
Organisme : Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
ID : GR 4617/3-1-AOBJ 629069

Références

Radiographics. 2002 May-Jun;22(3):651-71
pubmed: 12006694
Magn Reson Med. 2002 Jun;47(6):1202-10
pubmed: 12111967
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2003 Apr;17(4):499-506
pubmed: 12655592
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2005 Apr;26(4):743-9
pubmed: 15814915
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2005 May;21(5):604-10
pubmed: 15834905
Eur Radiol. 2005 Oct;15(10):2172-84
pubmed: 16003509
Invest Radiol. 2006 Feb;41(2):154-67
pubmed: 16428987
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007 Apr;25(4):824-31
pubmed: 17345635
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008 Nov;28(5):1226-32
pubmed: 18972331
Magn Reson Med. 2008 Dec;60(6):1329-36
pubmed: 19025882
Magn Reson Med. 2009 Oct;62(4):984-92
pubmed: 19672940
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010 Sep;32(3):677-83
pubmed: 20815066
Magn Reson Med. 2011 Oct;66(4):966-75
pubmed: 21437975
Magn Reson Med. 2011 Oct;66(4):1079-88
pubmed: 21437978
Eur J Radiol. 2012 Sep;81(9):2221-30
pubmed: 22019599
Neuroradiology. 2013 Mar;55(4):389-98
pubmed: 23143179
Acad Radiol. 2013 Jun;20(6):699-704
pubmed: 23510798
PLoS One. 2013 Aug 05;8(8):e70343
pubmed: 23940563
Magn Reson Med. 2014 Aug;72(2):522-33
pubmed: 24006309
IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph. 2013 Dec;19(12):2773-82
pubmed: 24051844
MAGMA. 2015 Apr;28(2):103-18
pubmed: 24838252
MAGMA. 2015 Apr;28(2):149-59
pubmed: 25099493
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2015 Aug 10;17:72
pubmed: 26257141
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2017 Jan 16;19(1):5
pubmed: 28088917
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018 Jan;47(1):272-281
pubmed: 28470915
Microvasc Res. 1974 Jan;7(1):131-43
pubmed: 4821168
Magn Reson Med. 1993 Jun;29(6):790-5
pubmed: 8350722
Invest Radiol. 1993 Feb;28(2):109-15
pubmed: 8444566
Med Phys. 1996 Jun;23(6):857-69
pubmed: 8798171

Auteurs

Sebastian Ebel (S)

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Leipzig - Heart Centre, Leipzig Strümpellstrasse 39, 04289, Leipzig, Germany. sebastian.ebel@icloud.com.

Lisa Hübner (L)

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Leipzig - Heart Centre, Leipzig Strümpellstrasse 39, 04289, Leipzig, Germany.

Benjamin Köhler (B)

Department of Simulations and Graphics, University of Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany.

Siegfried Kropf (S)

Institute for Biometrics and Medical Informatics, University of Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany.

Bernhard Preim (B)

Department of Simulations and Graphics, University of Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany.

Bernd Jung (B)

Department of Diagnostic, Interventional and Paediatric Radiology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

Matthias Grothoff (M)

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Leipzig - Heart Centre, Leipzig Strümpellstrasse 39, 04289, Leipzig, Germany.

Matthias Gutberlet (M)

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Leipzig - Heart Centre, Leipzig Strümpellstrasse 39, 04289, Leipzig, Germany.

Classifications MeSH