Keyur Parekh1,2, Michael Markl3,4, Michael Rose5,3, Susanne Schnell3, Andrada Popescu5,3, Cynthia K Rigsby5,3. 1. Department of Medical Imaging, Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, 225 E. Chicago Ave., Chicago, IL, 60611, USA. 23.keyurparekh@gmail.com. 2. Department of Radiology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA. 23.keyurparekh@gmail.com. 3. Department of Radiology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA. 4. Department of Biomedical Engineering, McCormick School of Engineering, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA. 5. Department of Medical Imaging, Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, 225 E. Chicago Ave., Chicago, IL, 60611, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the feasibility of 4D flow MRI for visualization and quantification of the portal venous haemodynamics in children and young adults. METHODS: 4D flow was performed in 28 paediatric patients (median age, 8.5 years; interquartile range, 5.2-16.5), 15 with non-operated native portal system and 13 with surgically created portal shunt. Image quality assessment for 3D flow visualization and flow pattern analyses was performed. Regional 4D flow peak velocity and net flow were compared with 2D-cine phase contrast MRI (2D-PC MR) in the post-surgical patients. RESULTS: Mean 3D flow visualization quality score was excellent (mean ± SD, 4.2 ± 0.9) with good inter-rater agreement (κ,0.67). Image quality in children aged >10 years was better than children ≤10 years (p < 0.05). Flow pattern was defined for portal, superior mesenteric, splenic veins and splenic artery in all patients. 4D flow and 2D-PC MR peak velocity and net flow were similar with good correlation (peak velocity: 4D flow 22.2 ± 9.1 cm/s and 2D-PC MR 25.2 ± 11.2 cm/s, p = 0.46; r = 0.92, p < 0.0001; net flow: 4D flow 9.5 ± 7.4 ml/s and 2D-PC MR 10.1 ± 7.3 ml/s, p = 0.65; r = 0.81, p = 0.0007). CONCLUSIONS: 4D flow MRI is feasible and holds promise for the comprehensive 3D visualization and quantification of portal venous flow dynamics in children and young adults. KEY POINTS: • 4D flow MRI is feasible in children and young adults. • 4D flow MRI has the ability to non-invasively characterize portal haemodynamics. • Image quality of 4D flow MRI is better is older children. • 4D flow MRI can accurately quantify portal flow compared to 2D-cine PC MRI.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the feasibility of 4D flow MRI for visualization and quantification of the portal venous haemodynamics in children and young adults. METHODS: 4D flow was performed in 28 paediatric patients (median age, 8.5 years; interquartile range, 5.2-16.5), 15 with non-operated native portal system and 13 with surgically created portal shunt. Image quality assessment for 3D flow visualization and flow pattern analyses was performed. Regional 4D flow peak velocity and net flow were compared with 2D-cine phase contrast MRI (2D-PC MR) in the post-surgical patients. RESULTS: Mean 3D flow visualization quality score was excellent (mean ± SD, 4.2 ± 0.9) with good inter-rater agreement (κ,0.67). Image quality in children aged >10 years was better than children ≤10 years (p < 0.05). Flow pattern was defined for portal, superior mesenteric, splenic veins and splenic artery in all patients. 4D flow and 2D-PC MR peak velocity and net flow were similar with good correlation (peak velocity: 4D flow 22.2 ± 9.1 cm/s and 2D-PC MR 25.2 ± 11.2 cm/s, p = 0.46; r = 0.92, p < 0.0001; net flow: 4D flow 9.5 ± 7.4 ml/s and 2D-PC MR 10.1 ± 7.3 ml/s, p = 0.65; r = 0.81, p = 0.0007). CONCLUSIONS: 4D flow MRI is feasible and holds promise for the comprehensive 3D visualization and quantification of portal venous flow dynamics in children and young adults. KEY POINTS: • 4D flow MRI is feasible in children and young adults. • 4D flow MRI has the ability to non-invasively characterize portal haemodynamics. • Image quality of 4D flow MRI is better is older children. • 4D flow MRI can accurately quantify portal flow compared to 2D-cine PC MRI.
Authors: Benjamin L Shneider; Jaime Bosch; Roberto de Franchis; Sukru H Emre; Roberto J Groszmann; Simon C Ling; Jonathan M Lorenz; Robert H Squires; Riccardo A Superina; Ann E Thompson; George V Mazariegos Journal: Pediatr Transplant Date: 2012-03-13
Authors: Zoran Stankovic; Alex Frydrychowicz; Zoltan Csatari; Elisabeth Panther; Peter Deibert; Wulf Euringer; Wolfgang Kreisel; Maximilian Russe; Simon Bauer; Mathias Langer; Michael Markl Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Jelena Bock; Alex Frydrychowicz; Aurélien F Stalder; Thorsten A Bley; Hans Burkhardt; Jürgen Hennig; Michael Markl Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Alejandro Roldán-Alzate; Alex Frydrychowicz; Eric Niespodzany; Ben R Landgraf; Kevin M Johnson; Oliver Wieben; Scott B Reeder Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-11-12 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Alejandro Roldán-Alzate; Alex Frydrychowicz; Adnan Said; Kevin M Johnson; Christopher J Francois; Oliver Wieben; Scott B Reeder Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-03-16 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: A Frydrychowicz; A Roldan-Alzate; E Winslow; D Consigny; C A Campo; U Motosugi; K M Johnson; O Wieben; S B Reeder Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-06-27 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Thekla H Oechtering; Grant S Roberts; Nikolaos Panagiotopoulos; Oliver Wieben; Alejandro Roldán-Alzate; Scott B Reeder Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2021-11-27
Authors: Heather A Stefek; Cynthia K Rigsby; Haben Berhane; Andrada R Popescu; Shankar Rajeswaran; Riccardo A Superina Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2018-10-31
Authors: Simone Hammer; Florian Zeman; Hans Jürgen Schlitt; Christian Stroszczynski; Barbara Greiner; Michael Christian Doppler; Wibke Uller Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-04-21 Impact factor: 4.996