BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular flow is commonly assessed with two-dimensional, phase-contrast MRI (2-D PC-MRI). However, scan prescription and acquisition over multiple planes is lengthy, often requires direct physician oversight and has inconsistent results. Time-resolved volumetric PC-MRI (4-D flow) may address these limitations. OBJECTIVE: We assess the degree of agreement and internal consistency between 2-D and 4-D flow quantification in our clinical population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Software enabling flow calculation from 4-D flow was developed in Java. With IRB approval and HIPAA compliance, 18 consecutive patients without shunts were identified who underwent both (1) conventional 2-D PC-MRI of the aorta and main pulmonary artery and (2) 4-D flow imaging. Aortic and pulmonary flow rates were assessed with both techniques. RESULTS: Both methods showed general agreement in flow rates (ρ: 0.87-0.90). Systemic and pulmonary arterial flow rates were well-correlated (ρ: 4-D 0.98-0.99, 2-D 0.93), but more closely matched with 4-D (P < 0.05, Brown-Forsythe). Pulmonary flow rates were lower than systemic rates for 2-D (P < 0.05, two-sample t-test). In a sub-analysis of patients without pulmonary or aortic regurgitation, 2-D showed improved correlation of flow rates while 4-D phase-contrast remained tightly correlated (ρ: 4-D 0.99-1.00, 2-D 0.99). CONCLUSION: 4-D PC-MRI demonstrates greater consistency than conventional 2-D PC-MRI for flow quantification.
BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular flow is commonly assessed with two-dimensional, phase-contrast MRI (2-D PC-MRI). However, scan prescription and acquisition over multiple planes is lengthy, often requires direct physician oversight and has inconsistent results. Time-resolved volumetric PC-MRI (4-D flow) may address these limitations. OBJECTIVE: We assess the degree of agreement and internal consistency between 2-D and 4-D flow quantification in our clinical population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Software enabling flow calculation from 4-D flow was developed in Java. With IRB approval and HIPAA compliance, 18 consecutive patients without shunts were identified who underwent both (1) conventional 2-D PC-MRI of the aorta and main pulmonary artery and (2) 4-D flow imaging. Aortic and pulmonary flow rates were assessed with both techniques. RESULTS: Both methods showed general agreement in flow rates (ρ: 0.87-0.90). Systemic and pulmonary arterial flow rates were well-correlated (ρ: 4-D 0.98-0.99, 2-D 0.93), but more closely matched with 4-D (P < 0.05, Brown-Forsythe). Pulmonary flow rates were lower than systemic rates for 2-D (P < 0.05, two-sample t-test). In a sub-analysis of patients without pulmonary or aortic regurgitation, 2-D showed improved correlation of flow rates while 4-D phase-contrast remained tightly correlated (ρ: 4-D 0.99-1.00, 2-D 0.99). CONCLUSION: 4-D PC-MRI demonstrates greater consistency than conventional 2-D PC-MRI for flow quantification.
Authors: M T Alley; S Napel; Y Amano; D S Paik; R Y Shifrin; A Shimakawa; N J Pelc; R J Herfkens Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1999-05 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: M Markl; R Bammer; M T Alley; C J Elkins; M T Draney; A Barnett; M E Moseley; G H Glover; N J Pelc Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: P G Walker; G B Cranney; M B Scheidegger; G Waseleski; G M Pohost; A P Yoganathan Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1993 May-Jun Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Michael Markl; Mary T Draney; Michael D Hope; Jonathan M Levin; Frandics P Chan; Marcus T Alley; Norbert J Pelc; Robert J Herfkens Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2004 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Hermann Körperich; Jürgen Gieseke; Peter Barth; Romhild Hoogeveen; Hermann Esdorn; Andreas Peterschröder; Hans Meyer; Philipp Beerbaum Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-04-05 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Emilie Bollache; Pim van Ooij; Alex Powell; James Carr; Michael Markl; Alex J Barker Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-07-19 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Albert Hsiao; Umar Tariq; Marcus T Alley; Michael Lustig; Shreyas S Vasanawala Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2014-02-08 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Albert Hsiao; Ufra Yousaf; Marcus T Alley; Michael Lustig; Frandics Pak Chan; Beverley Newman; Shreyas S Vasanawala Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-04-24 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: M Markl; S Schnell; C Wu; E Bollache; K Jarvis; A J Barker; J D Robinson; C K Rigsby Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2016-03-02 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: Umar Tariq; Albert Hsiao; Marcus Alley; Tao Zhang; Michael Lustig; Shreyas S Vasanawala Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-11-21 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Kimberley G Jacobs; Frandics P Chan; Joseph Y Cheng; Shreyas S Vasanawala; Shiraz A Maskatia Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2020-01-01 Impact factor: 2.357