BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Noninvasive assessment of the hemodynamic significance of carotid stenosis is often performed with MR angiography and supplemented with carotid Doppler sonography. Phase contrast with vastly undersampled isotropic projection reconstruction (PC-VIPR), a novel MR imaging technique, accelerates phase-contrast MR flow imaging and provides both images of the vessels and measurements of blood-flow velocities. For this study, we determined the accuracy of PC-VIPR blood-flow velocity measurements to determine pressure gradients across an experimental carotid stenosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A focal stenosis was surgically created in each common carotid artery of 6 canines. Digital subtraction angiography (DSA) was performed, and the degree of stenosis was determined using the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial methodology. A microcatheter was positioned in the carotid artery proximal and distal to the stenosis, and pressures were measured in the vessel through the catheter. PC-VIPR was then performed on a 1.5T MR imaging scanner with parameters producing 0.8-mm isotropic voxel resolution. From the velocity measurements, pressure gradients were calculated from the Navier-Stokes relationship to compare with the pressures measured by a catheter. RESULTS: Carotid stenoses in the 50%-85% range were produced in the 12 arteries. Pressure gradients across the stenoses ranged from 6 to 26 mm Hg. The pressure gradient calculated from the PC-VIPR data correlated (r = 0.91, P < .0001) with the actual pressure measurements. CONCLUSION: With PC-VIPR, a novel MR imaging technique, the hemodynamic effect of a stenosis on flow and pressure can be evaluated.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Noninvasive assessment of the hemodynamic significance of carotid stenosis is often performed with MR angiography and supplemented with carotid Doppler sonography. Phase contrast with vastly undersampled isotropic projection reconstruction (PC-VIPR), a novel MR imaging technique, accelerates phase-contrast MR flow imaging and provides both images of the vessels and measurements of blood-flow velocities. For this study, we determined the accuracy of PC-VIPR blood-flow velocity measurements to determine pressure gradients across an experimental carotid stenosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A focal stenosis was surgically created in each common carotid artery of 6 canines. Digital subtraction angiography (DSA) was performed, and the degree of stenosis was determined using the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial methodology. A microcatheter was positioned in the carotid artery proximal and distal to the stenosis, and pressures were measured in the vessel through the catheter. PC-VIPR was then performed on a 1.5T MR imaging scanner with parameters producing 0.8-mm isotropic voxel resolution. From the velocity measurements, pressure gradients were calculated from the Navier-Stokes relationship to compare with the pressures measured by a catheter. RESULTS: Carotid stenoses in the 50%-85% range were produced in the 12 arteries. Pressure gradients across the stenoses ranged from 6 to 26 mm Hg. The pressure gradient calculated from the PC-VIPR data correlated (r = 0.91, P < .0001) with the actual pressure measurements. CONCLUSION: With PC-VIPR, a novel MR imaging technique, the hemodynamic effect of a stenosis on flow and pressure can be evaluated.
Authors: Abbas Nasiraei-Moghaddam; Geoffrey Behrens; Nasser Fatouraee; Ramesh Agarwal; Eric T Choi; Amir A Amini Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: E Tetteroo; C Haaring; Y van der Graaf; J P van Schaik; A D van Engelen; W P Mali Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 1996 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Jean Marie K S U-King-Im; Rikin A Trivedi; Justin J Cross; Nicholas J P Higgins; William Hollingworth; Martin Graves; Ilse Joubert; Peter J Kirkpatrick; Nagui M Antoun; Jonathan H Gillard Journal: Stroke Date: 2004-07-08 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: N H Pijls; B Van Gelder; P Van der Voort; K Peels; F A Bracke; H J Bonnier; M I el Gamal Journal: Circulation Date: 1995-12-01 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: M R Mayberg; S E Wilson; F Yatsu; D G Weiss; L Messina; L A Hershey; C Colling; J Eskridge; D Deykin; H R Winn Journal: JAMA Date: 1991-12-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: M Calderon-Arnulphi; S Amin-Hanjani; A Alaraj; M Zhao; X Du; S Ruland; X J Zhou; K R Thulborn; F T Charbel Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2011-08-11 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Thorsten A Bley; Kevin M Johnson; Christopher J François; Scott B Reeder; Mark L Schiebler; Benjamin R Landgraf; Daniel Consigny; Thomas M Grist; Oliver Wieben Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-08-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: J Mikhail Kellawan; John W Harrell; Alejandro Roldan-Alzate; Oliver Wieben; William G Schrage Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2016-01-01 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: W Chang; M W Loecher; Y Wu; D B Niemann; B Ciske; B Aagaard-Kienitz; S Kecskemeti; K M Johnson; O Wieben; C Mistretta; P Turski Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-04-12 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: R Moftakhar; B Aagaard-Kienitz; K Johnson; P A Turski; A S Turk; D B Niemann; D Consigny; J Grinde; O Wieben; C A Mistretta Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2007-09-20 Impact factor: 3.825