Validation of non-contrast multiple overlapping thin-slab 4D-flow cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.
Aortic flow
Contrast enhancement
Offline analysis
Phase contrast
Journal
Magnetic resonance imaging
ISSN: 1873-5894
Titre abrégé: Magn Reson Imaging
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 8214883
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2020
12 2020
Historique:
received:
15
04
2020
revised:
31
08
2020
accepted:
04
10
2020
pubmed:
10
10
2020
medline:
25
2
2021
entrez:
9
10
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) flow quantification is typically performed using 2D phase-contrast (PC) imaging of a plane perpendicular to flow. 3D-PC imaging (4D-flow) allows offline quantification anywhere in a thick slab, but is often limited by suboptimal signal, potentially alleviated by contrast enhancement. We developed a non-contrast 4D-flow sequence, which acquires multiple overlapping thin slabs (MOTS) to minimize signal loss, and hypothesized that it could improve image quality, diagnostic accuracy, and aortic flow measurements compared to non-contrast single-slab approach. We prospectively studied 20 patients referred for transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), who underwent CMR (GE, 3 T). 2D-PC images of the aortic valve and three 4D-flow datasets covering the heart were acquired, including single-slab, pre- and post-contrast, and non-contrast MOTS. Each 4D-flow dataset was interpreted blindly for ≥moderate valve disease and compared to TEE. Flow visualization through each valve was scored (0 to 4), and aortic-valve flow measured on each 4D-flow dataset and compared to 2D-PC reference. Diagnostic quality visualization was achieved with the pre- and post-contrast 4D-flow acquisitions in 25% and 100% valves, respectively (scores 0.9 ± 1.1 and 3.8 ± 0.5), and in 58% with the non-contrast MOTS (1.6 ± 1.1). Accuracy of detection of valve disease was 75%, 92% and 82%, respectively. Aortic flow measurements were possible in 53%, 95% and in 89% patients, respectively. The correlation between pre-contrast single-slab measurements and 2D-PC reference was weak (r = 0.21), but improved with both contrast enhancement (r = 0.71) and with MOTS (r = 0.67). Although non-contrast MOTS 4D-flow improves valve function visualization and diagnostic accuracy, a significant proportion of valves cannot be accurately assessed. However, aortic flow measurements using non-contrast MOTS is feasible and reaches similar accuracy to that of contrast-enhanced 4D-flow.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) flow quantification is typically performed using 2D phase-contrast (PC) imaging of a plane perpendicular to flow. 3D-PC imaging (4D-flow) allows offline quantification anywhere in a thick slab, but is often limited by suboptimal signal, potentially alleviated by contrast enhancement. We developed a non-contrast 4D-flow sequence, which acquires multiple overlapping thin slabs (MOTS) to minimize signal loss, and hypothesized that it could improve image quality, diagnostic accuracy, and aortic flow measurements compared to non-contrast single-slab approach.
METHODS
We prospectively studied 20 patients referred for transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), who underwent CMR (GE, 3 T). 2D-PC images of the aortic valve and three 4D-flow datasets covering the heart were acquired, including single-slab, pre- and post-contrast, and non-contrast MOTS. Each 4D-flow dataset was interpreted blindly for ≥moderate valve disease and compared to TEE. Flow visualization through each valve was scored (0 to 4), and aortic-valve flow measured on each 4D-flow dataset and compared to 2D-PC reference.
RESULTS
Diagnostic quality visualization was achieved with the pre- and post-contrast 4D-flow acquisitions in 25% and 100% valves, respectively (scores 0.9 ± 1.1 and 3.8 ± 0.5), and in 58% with the non-contrast MOTS (1.6 ± 1.1). Accuracy of detection of valve disease was 75%, 92% and 82%, respectively. Aortic flow measurements were possible in 53%, 95% and in 89% patients, respectively. The correlation between pre-contrast single-slab measurements and 2D-PC reference was weak (r = 0.21), but improved with both contrast enhancement (r = 0.71) and with MOTS (r = 0.67).
CONCLUSIONS
Although non-contrast MOTS 4D-flow improves valve function visualization and diagnostic accuracy, a significant proportion of valves cannot be accurately assessed. However, aortic flow measurements using non-contrast MOTS is feasible and reaches similar accuracy to that of contrast-enhanced 4D-flow.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33035638
pii: S0730-725X(20)30607-X
doi: 10.1016/j.mri.2020.10.002
pmc: PMC7931662
mid: NIHMS1671353
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Validation Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
223-231Subventions
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : T32 HL007381
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Magn Reson Med. 2013 Jul;70(1):53-63
pubmed: 22887065
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019 Feb;12(2):252-266
pubmed: 30732721
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2017 Mar 7;19(1):35
pubmed: 28270219
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2016 Dec;44(6):1493-1503
pubmed: 27185516
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018 Jan;47(1):272-281
pubmed: 28470915
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018 May 1;19(5):587-588
pubmed: 29385421
Magn Reson Imaging. 2018 Jan;45:58-65
pubmed: 28887207
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2011 Oct 04;13:55
pubmed: 21970399
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2020 Feb;51(2):472-480
pubmed: 31257647
J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2015 May-Jun;39(3):422-7
pubmed: 25978593
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2017 Feb 10;19(1):19
pubmed: 28183320
Invest Radiol. 2013 Dec;48(12):819-25
pubmed: 23857136
Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016 Oct;32(10):1529-41
pubmed: 27435230
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2011 Jul;34(1):203-10
pubmed: 21598342
Magn Reson Med. 1991 Feb;17(2):434-51
pubmed: 2062215
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012 Sep 1;5(5):604-12
pubmed: 22798520
Magn Reson Med. 2016 Mar;75(3):1064-75
pubmed: 25940239
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2015 Feb 19;17:18
pubmed: 25827288
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2018 Jan 15;20(1):5
pubmed: 29332606
Magn Reson Med. 2012 Apr;67(4):1054-64
pubmed: 22083998
Ann Biomed Eng. 2009 Aug;37(8):1495-515
pubmed: 19466548
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015 Oct;42(4):870-86
pubmed: 25708923
NMR Biomed. 2012 Jul;25(7):917-24
pubmed: 22180216
Magn Reson Med. 2017 Mar;77(3):1036-1048
pubmed: 27016025
Magn Reson Med. 2013 Feb;69(2):434-43
pubmed: 22528878
Acta Radiol. 2019 Mar;60(3):327-337
pubmed: 30479136
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017 Jan;18(1):114
pubmed: 27679602
Magn Reson Med. 2009 Oct;62(4):984-92
pubmed: 19672940
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018 Jul;48(1):121-131
pubmed: 29206322
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018 Oct;48(4):1147-1158
pubmed: 29638024
Radiology. 2012 Oct;265(1):87-95
pubmed: 22923717
Br J Radiol. 2009 May;82(977):386-91
pubmed: 19153187
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2015 Aug 10;17:72
pubmed: 26257141
Pediatr Radiol. 2011 Jun;41(6):711-20
pubmed: 21221566
Magn Reson Med. 1996 Apr;35(4):521-31
pubmed: 8992202
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2016 Jun;43(6):1355-68
pubmed: 26646061
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015 Jan;28(1):1-39.e14
pubmed: 25559473
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2011 Jan 14;13:7
pubmed: 21235751
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010 Sep;32(3):677-83
pubmed: 20815066
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2019 Sep;50(3):677-681
pubmed: 31317587