Experimental Assessment of Two Non-Contrast MRI Sequences Used for Computational Fluid Dynamics: Investigation of Consistency Between Techniques.
Arterio-venous fistula
Computational fluid dynamics
Magnetic resonance imaging
Journal
Cardiovascular engineering and technology
ISSN: 1869-4098
Titre abrégé: Cardiovasc Eng Technol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101531846
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2020
08 2020
Historique:
received:
05
06
2019
accepted:
20
06
2020
pubmed:
3
7
2020
medline:
16
12
2020
entrez:
3
7
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Recent studies have noted a degree of variance between the geometries segmented by different groups from 3D medical images that are used in computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations of patient-specific cardiovascular systems. The aim of this study was to determine if the applied sequence of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) also introduced observable variance in CFD results. Using a series of phantoms MR images of vessels of known diameter were assessed for the time-of-flight and multi-echo data image combination sequences. Following this, patient images of arterio-venous fistulas were acquired using the same sequences. Comparisons of geometry were made using the phantom and patient images, and of wall shear stress quantities using the CFD results from the patient images. Phantom images showed deviations in diameter between 0 and 15% between the sequences, depending on vessel diameter. Patient images showed different geometrical features such as narrowings that were not present on both sequences. Distributions of wall shear stress (WSS) quantities differed from simulations between the geometries obtained from the sequences. In conclusion, choosing different MRI sequences resulted in slightly different geometries of the same anatomy, which led to compounded errors in WSS quantities from CFD simulation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32613600
doi: 10.1007/s13239-020-00473-z
pii: 10.1007/s13239-020-00473-z
pmc: PMC7385008
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
416-430Références
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2020 Feb;51(2):331-338
pubmed: 31355502
MAGMA. 2018 Dec;31(6):735-745
pubmed: 30132298
Ann Biomed Eng. 2017 Mar;45(3):525-541
pubmed: 27933407
Magn Reson Imaging. 2018 May;48:62-69
pubmed: 29223732
J Biomech. 2013 Jan 4;46(1):165-9
pubmed: 23122945
J Biomech Eng. 2011 Feb;133(2):021003
pubmed: 21280875
J Biomech Eng. 2013 Jan;135(1):011005
pubmed: 23363216
Nat Methods. 2012 Jun 28;9(7):676-82
pubmed: 22743772
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2003 May;22(5):674-84
pubmed: 12846436
Ann Biomed Eng. 2003 Feb;31(2):132-41
pubmed: 12627820
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2013 Apr;28(4):997-1005
pubmed: 22785110
Heart. 2016 Jan;102(1):18-28
pubmed: 26512019
Eur Radiol. 2008 Jan;18(1):158-67
pubmed: 17646991
Neuroradiology. 2013 Mar;55(4):389-98
pubmed: 23143179
Ann Biomed Eng. 2013 Apr;41(4):657-68
pubmed: 23188560
Clin Radiol. 2015 Aug;70(8):852-7
pubmed: 25976499
Magn Reson Med. 2008 Nov;60(5):1020-8
pubmed: 18956420
Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10
pubmed: 2868172
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2012 Sep;33(8):1565-72
pubmed: 22499844
Acad Radiol. 2013 Jun;20(6):699-704
pubmed: 23510798
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1992 Sep-Oct;13(5):1411-22
pubmed: 1414835
N Engl J Med. 1966 Nov 17;275(20):1089-92
pubmed: 5923023
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2012 Jan;27(1):358-68
pubmed: 21771751
Cardiovasc Eng Technol. 2018 Dec;9(4):544-564
pubmed: 30203115
J Vasc Surg. 2016 Jul;64(1):236-43
pubmed: 27345510