Andrew L Wentland1, Thomas M Grist, Oliver Wieben. 1. Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, 1111 Highland Avenue, Madison, WI, USA 53705-2275, USA. alwentland@wisc.edu
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the repeatability and internal consistency of flow measurements in the renal arteries and pararenal aorta with the use of standard two-dimensional (2D) and novel four-dimensional (4D) phase contrast (PC) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten healthy volunteers were imaged with a radially undersampled 4D PC technique centered over the renal arteries and with four 2D PC slices placed in the supra/infrarenal aorta and the left/right renal arteries; this MRI exam was performed twice on each subject. Flow measurements in all four vessels were computed from 2D and 4D PC data sets. Student's t-tests (P < .05) were used to assess differences between in-flow (suprarenal aorta) and out-flow (infrarenal aorta + left renal artery + right renal artery) for the 2D and 4D techniques, to compare in- and out-flow, and to compare repeated measurements of 2D and 4D flow measurements. RESULTS: No significant differences were found in repeated measurements of 2D (P = .15) or 4D (P = .39) data. No significant difference was found between 2D (3.4 ± 2.8 mL/cardiac cycle) and 4D (3.5 ± 2.7 mL/cardiac cycle) in- and out-flow differences (P = .88). Out-flow was greater than in-flow for 2D measurements (P = .003); no difference was found for 4D measurements. CONCLUSION: The 2D and 4D techniques demonstrated strong repeatability and internal consistency of flow measurements in the renal arteries and pararenal aorta.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the repeatability and internal consistency of flow measurements in the renal arteries and pararenal aorta with the use of standard two-dimensional (2D) and novel four-dimensional (4D) phase contrast (PC) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten healthy volunteers were imaged with a radially undersampled 4D PC technique centered over the renal arteries and with four 2D PC slices placed in the supra/infrarenal aorta and the left/right renal arteries; this MRI exam was performed twice on each subject. Flow measurements in all four vessels were computed from 2D and 4D PC data sets. Student's t-tests (P < .05) were used to assess differences between in-flow (suprarenal aorta) and out-flow (infrarenal aorta + left renal artery + right renal artery) for the 2D and 4D techniques, to compare in- and out-flow, and to compare repeated measurements of 2D and 4D flow measurements. RESULTS: No significant differences were found in repeated measurements of 2D (P = .15) or 4D (P = .39) data. No significant difference was found between 2D (3.4 ± 2.8 mL/cardiac cycle) and 4D (3.5 ± 2.7 mL/cardiac cycle) in- and out-flow differences (P = .88). Out-flow was greater than in-flow for 2D measurements (P = .003); no difference was found for 4D measurements. CONCLUSION: The 2D and 4D techniques demonstrated strong repeatability and internal consistency of flow measurements in the renal arteries and pararenal aorta.
Authors: Elizabeth J Nett; Kevin M Johnson; Alex Frydrychowicz; Alejandro Munoz Del Rio; Eric Schrauben; Christopher J Francois; Oliver Wieben Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-01-26 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Tianliang Gu; Frank R Korosec; Walter F Block; Sean B Fain; Quill Turk; Darren Lum; Yong Zhou; Thomas M Grist; Victor Haughton; Charles A Mistretta Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Liesbeth Bax; Chris J G Bakker; Willemijn M Klein; Niels Blanken; Jaap J Beutler; Willem P T R M Mali Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Darren P Lum; Kevin M Johnson; Russell K Paul; Aquilla S Turk; Daniel W Consigny; Julie R Grinde; Charles A Mistretta; Thomas M Grist Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jing Liu; Michael J Redmond; Ethan K Brodsky; Andrew L Alexander; Aiming Lu; Francis J Thornton; Michael J Schulte; Thomas M Grist; James G Pipe; Walter F Block Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Michael Markl; Frandics P Chan; Marcus T Alley; Kris L Wedding; Mary T Draney; Chris J Elkins; David W Parker; Ryan Wicker; Charles A Taylor; Robert J Herfkens; Norbert J Pelc Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Kevin M Johnson; Darren P Lum; Patrick A Turski; Walter F Block; Charles A Mistretta; Oliver Wieben Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Michael Markl; Andreas Harloff; Thorsten A Bley; Maxim Zaitsev; Bernd Jung; Ernst Weigang; Mathias Langer; Jürgen Hennig; Alex Frydrychowicz Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 4.813
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: Rafael Medero; Katrina Ruedinger; David Rutkowski; Kevin Johnson; Alejandro Roldán-Alzate Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2020-06-10 Impact factor: 3.934
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: Zoran Stankovic; Jury Fink; Jeremy D Collins; Edouard Semaan; Maximilian F Russe; James C Carr; Michael Markl; Mathias Langer; Bernd Jung Journal: MAGMA Date: 2014-08-07 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Daniel Jeong; Petros V Anagnostopoulos; Alejandro Roldan-Alzate; Shardha Srinivasan; Mark L Schiebler; Oliver Wieben; Christopher J François Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2014-12-04 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: E M Schrauben; K M Johnson; J Huston; A M Del Rio; S B Reeder; A Field; O Wieben Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-11-28 Impact factor: 3.825