J Seitz1, M Strotzer, T Wild, W R Nitz, M Völk, M Lenhart, S Feuerbach. 1. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University Hospital Regensburg, Franz-Josef-Strauss-Allee 11, D-93042 Regensburg, Germany. Johannes.Seitz@Klinik.Uni-Regensburg.de
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To compare blood flow velocities in the carotid arteries measured with three different magnetic resonance (MR) phase-contrast imaging techniques and with percutaneous Doppler ultrasound. METHODS: Fourteen healthy male volunteers with a mean age of 33 +/- 3.8 years were studied. Ultrasound and MR phase velocity mapping of both common carotid arteries (n = 28) was performed within 5 hours. A two-dimensional fast low-angle shot sequence with retrospective cardiac gating, a sequence with prospective cardiac triggering, and a breath-hold sequence with prospective cardiac triggering were used. Resistance indexes and pulsatility indexes were calculated for all modalities. RESULTS: The comparison of flow velocities obtained with ultrasound and the different MR techniques led to a moderate correlation of the retrospective gated and prospective triggered MR techniques (eg, r = 0.73 for maximum systolic velocity). The worst correlation was found between the breath-hold technique and retrospective cardiac gating (eg, r = 0.004 for pulsatility index). There was a weak correlation of all three MR sequences compared with ultrasound (r = 0.19-0.60) CONCLUSIONS: A moderate correlation was found between velocities and indexes measured with the prospective cardiac-triggered phase-contrast MR technique and the retrospective cardiac-gated phase-contrast MR technique. A weak correlation was found between the three different MR techniques and ultrasound, as well as between the breath-hold prospective cardiac-triggered MR sequence and both of the other MR sequences. The influence of temporal and spatial resolution on MR phase-contrast velocity mapping was confirmed.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To compare blood flow velocities in the carotid arteries measured with three different magnetic resonance (MR) phase-contrast imaging techniques and with percutaneous Doppler ultrasound. METHODS: Fourteen healthy male volunteers with a mean age of 33 +/- 3.8 years were studied. Ultrasound and MR phase velocity mapping of both common carotid arteries (n = 28) was performed within 5 hours. A two-dimensional fast low-angle shot sequence with retrospective cardiac gating, a sequence with prospective cardiac triggering, and a breath-hold sequence with prospective cardiac triggering were used. Resistance indexes and pulsatility indexes were calculated for all modalities. RESULTS: The comparison of flow velocities obtained with ultrasound and the different MR techniques led to a moderate correlation of the retrospective gated and prospective triggered MR techniques (eg, r = 0.73 for maximum systolic velocity). The worst correlation was found between the breath-hold technique and retrospective cardiac gating (eg, r = 0.004 for pulsatility index). There was a weak correlation of all three MR sequences compared with ultrasound (r = 0.19-0.60) CONCLUSIONS: A moderate correlation was found between velocities and indexes measured with the prospective cardiac-triggered phase-contrast MR technique and the retrospective cardiac-gated phase-contrast MR technique. A weak correlation was found between the three different MR techniques and ultrasound, as well as between the breath-hold prospective cardiac-triggered MR sequence and both of the other MR sequences. The influence of temporal and spatial resolution on MR phase-contrast velocity mapping was confirmed.
Authors: B P Schoennagel; J Yamamura; F Kording; R Fischer; P Bannas; G Adam; H Kooijman; C Ruprecht; K Fehrs; M Tavares de Sousa Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-01-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Jingfeng Jiang; Charles Strother; Kevin Johnson; Sara Baker; Dan Consigny; Oliver Wieben; James Zagzebski Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2011-02-23 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: W Chang; B Landgraf; K M Johnson; S Kecskemeti; Y Wu; J Velikina; H Rowley; O Wieben; C Mistretta; P Turski Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2010-10-14 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: P M McGah; J D Nerva; R P Morton; M C Barbour; M R Levitt; P D Mourad; L J Kim; A Aliseda Journal: Physiol Meas Date: 2015-10-09 Impact factor: 2.833
Authors: Patrick M McGah; Michael R Levitt; Michael C Barbour; Ryan P Morton; John D Nerva; Pierre D Mourad; Basavaraj V Ghodke; Danial K Hallam; Laligam N Sekhar; Louis J Kim; Alberto Aliseda Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2013-10-26 Impact factor: 3.934
Authors: J J Schneiders; S P Ferns; P van Ooij; M Siebes; A J Nederveen; R van den Berg; J van Lieshout; G Jansen; E vanBavel; C B Majoie Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-05-10 Impact factor: 3.825