OBJECTIVES: To visualize and quantify physiological blood flow of intracranial veins in vivo using time-resolved, 3D phase-contrast MRI (4D flow MRI), and to test measurement accuracy. METHODS: Fifteen healthy volunteers underwent repeated ECG-triggered 4D flow MRI (3 Tesla, 32-channel head coil). Intracranial venous blood flow was analysed using dedicated software allowing for blood flow visualization and quantification in analysis planes at the superior sagittal, straight, and transverse sinuses. MRI was evaluated for intra- and inter-observer agreement and scan-rescan reproducibility. Measurements of the transverse sinuses were compared with transcranial two-dimensional duplex ultrasound. RESULTS: Visualization of 3D blood flow within cerebral sinuses was feasible in 100 % and within at least one deep cerebral vein in 87 % of the volunteers. Blood flow velocity/volume increased along the superior sagittal sinus and was lower in the left compared to the right transverse sinus. Intra- and inter-observer reliability and reproducibility of blood flow velocity (mean difference 0.01/0.02/0.02 m/s) and volume (mean difference 0.0002/-0.0003/0.00003 l/s) were good to excellent. High/low velocities were more pronounced (8 % overestimation/9 % underestimation) in MRI compared to ultrasound. CONCLUSIONS: Four-dimensional flow MRI reliably visualizes and quantifies three-dimensional cerebral venous blood flow in vivo and is promising for studies in patients with sinus thrombosis and related diseases. KEY POINTS: • 4D flow MRI can be used to visualize and quantify physiological cerebral venous haemodynamics • Flow quantification within cerebral sinuses reveals high reliability and accuracy of 4D flow MRI • Blood flow volume and velocity increase along the superior sagittal sinus • Limited spatial resolution currently precludes flow quantification in small cerebral veins.
OBJECTIVES: To visualize and quantify physiological blood flow of intracranial veins in vivo using time-resolved, 3D phase-contrast MRI (4D flow MRI), and to test measurement accuracy. METHODS: Fifteen healthy volunteers underwent repeated ECG-triggered 4D flow MRI (3 Tesla, 32-channel head coil). Intracranial venous blood flow was analysed using dedicated software allowing for blood flow visualization and quantification in analysis planes at the superior sagittal, straight, and transverse sinuses. MRI was evaluated for intra- and inter-observer agreement and scan-rescan reproducibility. Measurements of the transverse sinuses were compared with transcranial two-dimensional duplex ultrasound. RESULTS: Visualization of 3D blood flow within cerebral sinuses was feasible in 100 % and within at least one deep cerebral vein in 87 % of the volunteers. Blood flow velocity/volume increased along the superior sagittal sinus and was lower in the left compared to the right transverse sinus. Intra- and inter-observer reliability and reproducibility of blood flow velocity (mean difference 0.01/0.02/0.02 m/s) and volume (mean difference 0.0002/-0.0003/0.00003 l/s) were good to excellent. High/low velocities were more pronounced (8 % overestimation/9 % underestimation) in MRI compared to ultrasound. CONCLUSIONS: Four-dimensional flow MRI reliably visualizes and quantifies three-dimensional cerebral venous blood flow in vivo and is promising for studies in patients with sinus thrombosis and related diseases. KEY POINTS: • 4D flow MRI can be used to visualize and quantify physiological cerebral venous haemodynamics • Flow quantification within cerebral sinuses reveals high reliability and accuracy of 4D flow MRI • Blood flow volume and velocity increase along the superior sagittal sinus • Limited spatial resolution currently precludes flow quantification in small cerebral veins.
Authors: A Sagduyu; H Sirin; S Mulayim; F Bademkiran; N Yunten; O Kitis; C Calli; T Dalbasti; E Kumral Journal: Acta Neurol Scand Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 3.209
Authors: Jan-Willem Lankhaar; Mark B M Hofman; J Tim Marcus; Jaco J M Zwanenburg; Theo J C Faes; Anton Vonk-Noordegraaf Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: K M Einhäupl; A Villringer; W Meister; S Mehraein; C Garner; M Pellkofer; R L Haberl; H W Pfister; P Schmiedek Journal: Lancet Date: 1991-09-07 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: S A Ansari; S Schnell; T Carroll; P Vakil; M C Hurley; C Wu; J Carr; B R Bendok; H Batjer; M Markl Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-05-02 Impact factor: 3.825
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: Zixuan Lin; Yang Li; Pan Su; Deng Mao; Zhiliang Wei; Jay J Pillai; Abhay Moghekar; Matthias van Osch; Yulin Ge; Hanzhang Lu Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Jing Liu; Louise Koskas; Farshid Faraji; Evan Kao; Yan Wang; Henrik Haraldsson; Sarah Kefayati; Chengcheng Zhu; Sinyeob Ahn; Gerhard Laub; David Saloner Journal: MAGMA Date: 2017-08-07 Impact factor: 2.310
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: Eoin A Murphy; Rose A Ross; Robert G Jones; Stephen J Gandy; Nicolas Aristokleous; Marco Salsano; Jonathan R Weir-McCall; Shona Matthew; John Graeme Houston Journal: Cardiovasc Eng Technol Date: 2017-07-13 Impact factor: 2.495