BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: 4D flow MR imaging is an emerging technique that allows visualization and quantification of 3D blood flow in vivo. However, representative studies evaluating its accuracy are lacking. Therefore, we compared blood flow quantification by using 4D flow MR imaging with US within the carotid bifurcation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-two healthy volunteers (age 25.3 ± 3.4 years) and 20 patients with ≥50% ICA stenosis (age 67.7 ± 7.4 years) were examined preoperatively and postoperatively by use of 4D flow MR imaging, with complete coverage of the left and right carotid bifurcation. Blood flow velocities were assessed with standardized 2D analysis planes distributed along the CCA and the ICA and were compared with US at baseline and postoperatively in patients. In addition, we tested reproducibility and interobserver agreement of 4D MR imaging in 10 volunteers. RESULTS: Overall, 101 CCAs and 79 ICAs were available for comparison. MR imaging underestimated (P < .05) systolic CCA and ICA blood flow velocity by 26% (0.79 ± 0.29 m/s vs 1.06 ± 0.31 m/s) and 19% (0.72 ± 0.21 m/s vs 0.89 ± 0.27 m/s) compared with US. Diastolic blood flow velocities were similar for MR imaging and US (differences, 9% and 3%, respectively; not significant). Reproducibility and interobserver agreement of 4D flow MR imaging was excellent. CONCLUSIONS: 4D flow MR imaging allowed for an accurate measurement of blood flow velocities in the carotid bifurcation of both volunteers and patients with only moderate underestimation compared with US. Thus, 4D flow MR imaging seems promising for a future combination with MRA to comprehensively assess ICA stenosis and related hemodynamic changes.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: 4D flow MR imaging is an emerging technique that allows visualization and quantification of 3D blood flow in vivo. However, representative studies evaluating its accuracy are lacking. Therefore, we compared blood flow quantification by using 4D flow MR imaging with US within the carotid bifurcation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-two healthy volunteers (age 25.3 ± 3.4 years) and 20 patients with ≥50% ICA stenosis (age 67.7 ± 7.4 years) were examined preoperatively and postoperatively by use of 4D flow MR imaging, with complete coverage of the left and right carotid bifurcation. Blood flow velocities were assessed with standardized 2D analysis planes distributed along the CCA and the ICA and were compared with US at baseline and postoperatively in patients. In addition, we tested reproducibility and interobserver agreement of 4D MR imaging in 10 volunteers. RESULTS: Overall, 101 CCAs and 79 ICAs were available for comparison. MR imaging underestimated (P < .05) systolic CCA and ICA blood flow velocity by 26% (0.79 ± 0.29 m/s vs 1.06 ± 0.31 m/s) and 19% (0.72 ± 0.21 m/s vs 0.89 ± 0.27 m/s) compared with US. Diastolic blood flow velocities were similar for MR imaging and US (differences, 9% and 3%, respectively; not significant). Reproducibility and interobserver agreement of 4D flow MR imaging was excellent. CONCLUSIONS: 4D flow MR imaging allowed for an accurate measurement of blood flow velocities in the carotid bifurcation of both volunteers and patients with only moderate underestimation compared with US. Thus, 4D flow MR imaging seems promising for a future combination with MRA to comprehensively assess ICA stenosis and related hemodynamic changes.
Authors: Michel Nonent; Jean-Michel Serfaty; Norbert Nighoghossian; François Rouhart; Laurent Derex; Carmen Rotaru; Pierre Chirossel; Bruno Guias; Jean-François Heautot; Pierre Gouny; Bernard Langella; Valérie Buthion; Isabelle Jars; Chahin Pachai; Charles Veyret; Jean-Yves Gauvrit; Michel Lamure; Philippe C Douek Journal: Stroke Date: 2004-02-05 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Gerhard-Michael von Reutern; Michael-Wolfgang Goertler; Natan M Bornstein; Massimo Del Sette; David H Evans; Andreas Hetzel; Manfred Kaps; Fabienne Perren; Alexander Razumovky; Michael von Reutern; Toshiyuki Shiogai; Ekaterina Titianova; Pavel Traubner; Narayanaswamy Venketasubramanian; Lawrence K S Wong; Masahiro Yasaka Journal: Stroke Date: 2012-02-16 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Michael Markl; Wolf Wallis; Christoph Strecker; Beryl Primrose Gladstone; Werner Vach; Andreas Harloff Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-01-23 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: A Harloff; F Albrecht; J Spreer; A F Stalder; J Bock; A Frydrychowicz; J Schöllhorn; A Hetzel; M Schumacher; J Hennig; M Markl Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Michael Markl; Felix Wegent; Timo Zech; Simon Bauer; Christoph Strecker; Martin Schumacher; Cornelius Weiller; Jürgen Hennig; Andreas Harloff Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2010-09-16 Impact factor: 7.792
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: 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: Susanne Schnell; Sameer A Ansari; Can Wu; Julio Garcia; Ian G Murphy; Ozair A Rahman; Amir A Rahsepar; Maria Aristova; Jeremy D Collins; James C Carr; Michael Markl Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-02-02 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Florian Schuchardt; Laure Schroeder; Constantin Anastasopoulos; Michael Markl; Jochen Bäuerle; Anja Hennemuth; Johann Drexl; José M Valdueza; Irina Mader; Andreas Harloff Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-02-01 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Susanne Schnell; Pegah Entezari; Riti J Mahadewia; S Chris Malaisrie; Patrick M McCarthy; Jeremy D Collins; James Carr; Michael Markl Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2016 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Thomas Wehrum; Felix Guenther; Alexander Fuchs; Florian Schuchardt; Anja Hennemuth; Andreas Harloff Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2018-01-11 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Michael J Rose; Kelly Jarvis; Varun Chowdhary; Alex J Barker; Bradley D Allen; Joshua D Robinson; Michael Markl; Cynthia K Rigsby; Susanne Schnell Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-05-18 Impact factor: 4.813