Sven Petersson1, Petter Dyverfeldt, Tino Ebbers. 1. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden. sven.petersson@liu.se
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the accuracy of wall shear stress (WSS) estimation using MRI. Specifically, to investigate the impact of different parameters and if MRI WSS estimates are monotonically related to actual WSS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The accuracy of WSS estimation using methods based on phase-contrast (PC) MRI velocity mapping, Fourier velocity encoding (FVE) and intravoxel velocity standard deviation mapping were studied using numerical simulations. The influence of spatial resolution, velocity encoding, wall segmentation, and voxel location were investigated over a range of WSS values. RESULTS: WSS estimates were found to be sensitive to parameter settings in general and spatial resolution in particular. All methods underestimated WSS, except for the FVE-based method, which instead was extremely sensitive to voxel position relative to the wall. Methods using PC-based WSS estimation with wall segmentation showed to be accurate for low WSS, but were sensitive to segmentation errors. CONCLUSION: Even in the absence of noise and for relatively simple velocity profiles, MRI WSS estimates cannot always be assumed to be linearly or even monotonically related to actual WSS. High WSS values cannot be resolved and the estimates depend on parameter setting. Nevertheless, distinguishing areas of low and moderate WSS may be feasible.
PURPOSE: To investigate the accuracy of wall shear stress (WSS) estimation using MRI. Specifically, to investigate the impact of different parameters and if MRI WSS estimates are monotonically related to actual WSS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The accuracy of WSS estimation using methods based on phase-contrast (PC) MRI velocity mapping, Fourier velocity encoding (FVE) and intravoxel velocity standard deviation mapping were studied using numerical simulations. The influence of spatial resolution, velocity encoding, wall segmentation, and voxel location were investigated over a range of WSS values. RESULTS: WSS estimates were found to be sensitive to parameter settings in general and spatial resolution in particular. All methods underestimated WSS, except for the FVE-based method, which instead was extremely sensitive to voxel position relative to the wall. Methods using PC-based WSS estimation with wall segmentation showed to be accurate for low WSS, but were sensitive to segmentation errors. CONCLUSION: Even in the absence of noise and for relatively simple velocity profiles, MRI WSS estimates cannot always be assumed to be linearly or even monotonically related to actual WSS. High WSS values cannot be resolved and the estimates depend on parameter setting. Nevertheless, distinguishing areas of low and moderate WSS may be feasible.
Authors: Bradley D Allen; Pim van Ooij; Alex J Barker; Maria Carr; Maya Gabbour; Susanne Schnell; Kelly B Jarvis; James C Carr; Michael Markl; Cynthia Rigsby; Joshua D Robinson Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-01-22 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Michael B Scott; Hyungkyu Huh; Pim van Ooij; Vincent Chen; Brenda Herrera; Mohammed Elbaz; Patrick McCarthy; S Chris Malaisrie; James Carr; Paul W M Fedak; Michael Markl; Alex J Barker Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2020-03-11 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Pim van Ooij; Wouter V Potters; Aart J Nederveen; Bradley D Allen; Jeremy Collins; James Carr; S Chris Malaisrie; Michael Markl; Alex J Barker Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-04-18 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Julio Garcia; Alex J Barker; Pim van Ooij; Susanne Schnell; Jyothy Puthumana; Robert O Bonow; Jeremy D Collins; James C Carr; Michael Markl Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-09-23 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Pim van Ooij; Alexander L Powell; Wouter V Potters; James C Carr; Michael Markl; Alex J Barker Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-07-03 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Mauricio S Galizia; Alex Barker; Yihua Liao; Jeremy Collins; James Carr; Mary M McDermott; Michael Markl Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-12-11 Impact factor: 5.315