PURPOSE: 1) To validate an R-R interval averaged golden angle spiral phase contrast magnetic resonance (RAGS PCMR) sequence against conventional cine PCMR for assessment of renal blood flow (RBF) in normal volunteers; and 2) To investigate the effects of motion and heart rate on the accuracy of flow measurements using an in silico simulation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 20 healthy volunteers RAGS (∼6 sec breath-hold) and respiratory-navigated cine (∼5 min) PCMR were performed in both renal arteries to assess RBF. A simulation of RAGS PCMR was used to assess the effect of heart rate (30-105 bpm), vessel expandability (0-150%) and translational motion (x1.0-4.0) on the accuracy of RBF measurements. RESULTS: There was good agreement between RAGS and cine PCMR in the volunteer study (bias: 0.01 L/min, limits of agreement: -0.04 to +0.06 L/min, P = 0.0001). The simulation demonstrated a positive linear relationship between heart rate and error (r = 0.9894, P < 0.0001), a negative linear relationship between vessel expansion and error (r = -0.9484, P < 0.0001), and a nonlinear, heart rate-dependent relationship between vessel translation and error. CONCLUSION: We have demonstrated that RAGS PCMR accurately measures RBF in vivo. However, the simulation reveals limitations in this technique at extreme heart rates (<40 bpm, >100 bpm), or when there is significant motion (vessel expandability: >80%, vessel translation: >x2.2).
PURPOSE: 1) To validate an R-R interval averaged golden angle spiral phase contrast magnetic resonance (RAGS PCMR) sequence against conventional cine PCMR for assessment of renal blood flow (RBF) in normal volunteers; and 2) To investigate the effects of motion and heart rate on the accuracy of flow measurements using an in silico simulation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 20 healthy volunteers RAGS (∼6 sec breath-hold) and respiratory-navigated cine (∼5 min) PCMR were performed in both renal arteries to assess RBF. A simulation of RAGS PCMR was used to assess the effect of heart rate (30-105 bpm), vessel expandability (0-150%) and translational motion (x1.0-4.0) on the accuracy of RBF measurements. RESULTS: There was good agreement between RAGS and cine PCMR in the volunteer study (bias: 0.01 L/min, limits of agreement: -0.04 to +0.06 L/min, P = 0.0001). The simulation demonstrated a positive linear relationship between heart rate and error (r = 0.9894, P < 0.0001), a negative linear relationship between vessel expansion and error (r = -0.9484, P < 0.0001), and a nonlinear, heart rate-dependent relationship between vessel translation and error. CONCLUSION: We have demonstrated that RAGS PCMR accurately measures RBF in vivo. However, the simulation reveals limitations in this technique at extreme heart rates (<40 bpm, >100 bpm), or when there is significant motion (vessel expandability: >80%, vessel translation: >x2.2).
Authors: Eleanor F Cox; Charlotte E Buchanan; Christopher R Bradley; Benjamin Prestwich; Huda Mahmoud; Maarten Taal; Nicholas M Selby; Susan T Francis Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2017-09-14 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Jakob A Hauser; Alexander Jones; Bejal Pandya; Andrew M Taylor; Vivek Muthurangu Journal: Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol Date: 2020-08-28 Impact factor: 4.733
Authors: Jennifer Keegan; Hitesh C Patel; Robin M Simpson; Raad H Mohiaddin; David N Firmin Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2015-02-04 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Giulia Villa; Steffen Ringgaard; Ingo Hermann; Rebecca Noble; Paolo Brambilla; Dinah S Khatir; Frank G Zöllner; Susan T Francis; Nicholas M Selby; Andrea Remuzzi; Anna Caroli Journal: MAGMA Date: 2019-08-17 Impact factor: 2.310