Pim van Ooij1,2, Alexander L Powell1, Wouter V Potters2, James C Carr1, Michael Markl1,3, Alex J Barker1. 1. Department of Radiology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 2. Department of Radiology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Biomedical Engineering, McCormick School of Engineering, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the reproducibility and interobserver variability of 3D aortic velocity vector fields and wall shear stress (WSS) averaged over five systolic timeframes derived from noncontrast 4D flow magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fourteen controls underwent test-retest 4D flow MRI examinations separated by 16 ± 3 days (resolution = 3.0-3.6 × 2.3-2.6 × 2.5-2.7 mm(3) ; TE/TR/FA = 2.5/4.9 msec/7°; Venc = 150 cm/s). Two observers segmented the aorta, and WSS was calculated for both series of scans and both segmentations. Test-retest and interobserver velocity and WSS vectors were compared on a voxel-by-voxel basis in the aorta and on a regional basis by subdividing the aortas in six segments. RESULTS: Test-retest: voxel-by-voxel Bland-Altman analysis revealed small differences (-0.03/-0.02 m/s/Pa), limits of agreement (LOA) of 0.25 m/s/0.29 Pa, and coefficients of variation (CV) of 20% for velocity/WSS. Voxel-by-voxel orthogonal regression analysis showed moderate agreement (slope: 1.14/1.16, intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]: 0.76/0.67 for velocity/WSS). The regional analysis revealed a CV of 9%/8% and ICC of 0.9/0.9 for velocity/WSS. Interobserver: voxel-by-voxel difference for WSS was 0, LOA: 0.17/0.19 Pa, CV: 12/13%, slope: 1.01/1.09, ICC: 0.87/0.85 for test/retest. The CV/ICC for WSS in the regional analysis was 4%/1.0 for test and 3%/1.0 for retest. CONCLUSION: Systolic velocity and WSS derived from 4D flow MRI are reproducible between consecutive visits, with low interobserver variability in healthy volunteers.
PURPOSE: To investigate the reproducibility and interobserver variability of 3D aortic velocity vector fields and wall shear stress (WSS) averaged over five systolic timeframes derived from noncontrast 4D flow magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fourteen controls underwent test-retest 4D flow MRI examinations separated by 16 ± 3 days (resolution = 3.0-3.6 × 2.3-2.6 × 2.5-2.7 mm(3) ; TE/TR/FA = 2.5/4.9 msec/7°; Venc = 150 cm/s). Two observers segmented the aorta, and WSS was calculated for both series of scans and both segmentations. Test-retest and interobserver velocity and WSS vectors were compared on a voxel-by-voxel basis in the aorta and on a regional basis by subdividing the aortas in six segments. RESULTS: Test-retest: voxel-by-voxel Bland-Altman analysis revealed small differences (-0.03/-0.02 m/s/Pa), limits of agreement (LOA) of 0.25 m/s/0.29 Pa, and coefficients of variation (CV) of 20% for velocity/WSS. Voxel-by-voxel orthogonal regression analysis showed moderate agreement (slope: 1.14/1.16, intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]: 0.76/0.67 for velocity/WSS). The regional analysis revealed a CV of 9%/8% and ICC of 0.9/0.9 for velocity/WSS. Interobserver: voxel-by-voxel difference for WSS was 0, LOA: 0.17/0.19 Pa, CV: 12/13%, slope: 1.01/1.09, ICC: 0.87/0.85 for test/retest. The CV/ICC for WSS in the regional analysis was 4%/1.0 for test and 3%/1.0 for retest. CONCLUSION: Systolic velocity and WSS derived from 4D flow MRI are reproducible between consecutive visits, with low interobserver variability in healthy volunteers.
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: Raphaël Duivenvoorden; Ed Vanbavel; Eric de Groot; Erik S G Stroes; Jonathan A Disselhorst; Barbara A Hutten; Johan S Laméris; John J P Kastelein; Aart J Nederveen Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2010-06-24 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Pim van Ooij; Wouter V Potters; Jeremy Collins; Maria Carr; James Carr; S Chris Malaisrie; Paul W M Fedak; Patrick M McCarthy; Michael Markl; Alex J Barker Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2014-08-14 Impact factor: 3.934
Authors: Michael D Hope; Thomas A Hope; Alison K Meadows; Karen G Ordovas; Thomas H Urbania; Marcus T Alley; Charles B Higgins Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Haben Berhane; Michael Scott; Mohammed Elbaz; Kelly Jarvis; Patrick McCarthy; James Carr; Chris Malaisrie; Ryan Avery; Alex J Barker; Joshua D Robinson; Cynthia K Rigsby; Michael Markl Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2020-03-13 Impact factor: 4.668
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; Julio Garcia; Wouter V Potters; S Chris Malaisrie; Jeremy D Collins; James C Carr; Michael Markl; Alex J Barker Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-10-19 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Evan M Masutani; Francisco Contijoch; Espoir Kyubwa; Joseph Cheng; Marcus T Alley; Shreyas Vasanawala; Albert Hsiao Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-03-07 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Ozair Rahman; Michael Scott; Emilie Bollache; Kenichiro Suwa; Jeremy Collins; James Carr; Paul Fedak; Patrick McCarthy; Chris Malaisrie; Alex J Barker; Michael Markl Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2019-05-29 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Heather A Stefek; Haben Berhane; Joshua D Robinson; Brian Reilly; Alexander Ruh; Michael Markl; Cynthia K Rigsby Journal: Pediatr Cardiol Date: 2019-07-24 Impact factor: 1.655
Authors: Alejandro Roldán-Alzate; Christopher J Francois; Oliver Wieben; Scott B Reeder Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2016-05-17 Impact factor: 3.959