PURPOSE: To measure the effects of using time-resolved (TR) versus time-averaged (TA) ventricular segmentation on four-dimensional flow-sensitive (4D flow) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) kinetic energy (KE) calculations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Right (RV) and left (LV) ventricular KE was calculated from 4D flow MRI data acquired at 3.0T in 10 healthy volunteers and five subjects with cardiac disease using TR and TA segmentation. KE was calculated from the mass of blood within the ventricles multiplied by the velocities squared. Differences in TR and TA KE and interobserver variability were quantified with Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: In healthy volunteers, peak systolic RV KE (KERV ) were 4.89 ± 1.49 mJ using TR and 5.53 ± 1.62 mJ using TA segmentation (P = 0.016); peak systolic LV KE (KELV ) were 3.29 ± 0.96 mJ and 4.16 ± 1.26 mJ (P = 0.005). Peak diastolic KERV were 3.33 ± 0.90 mJ (TR) and 3.61 ± 1.12 mJ (TA) (P = 0.082), while peak diastolic KELV were 4.90 ± 1.49 mJ and 5.31 ± 1.59 mJ (P = 0.044). In patient volunteers, peak systolic KERV were 4.34 ± 3.78 mJ using TR and 4.88 ± 3.98 mJ using TA segmentation (P = 0.26); peak systolic KELV were 4.39 ± 4.21 mJ and 4.36 ± 3.84 mJ (P = 0.91). Peak diastolic KERV were 3.34 ± 2.08 mJ (TR) and 4.05 ± 1.12 mJ (TA) (P = 0.08), while peak diastolic KELV were 4.34 ± 5.11 mJ and 4.06 ± 3.47 mJ (P = 0.75). Interobserver differences in KELV were greater for TR than TA calculations; bias ranged from 3 ± 30% for TA peak systolic KELV to 36 ± 30% for TR peak diastolic KELV . CONCLUSION: Although qualitatively similar, KE values calculated through TA segmentation were consistently greater than TR KE, with differences more pronounced during systole and in the LV. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2017;45:821-828.
PURPOSE: To measure the effects of using time-resolved (TR) versus time-averaged (TA) ventricular segmentation on four-dimensional flow-sensitive (4D flow) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) kinetic energy (KE) calculations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Right (RV) and left (LV) ventricular KE was calculated from 4D flow MRI data acquired at 3.0T in 10 healthy volunteers and five subjects with cardiac disease using TR and TA segmentation. KE was calculated from the mass of blood within the ventricles multiplied by the velocities squared. Differences in TR and TA KE and interobserver variability were quantified with Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: In healthy volunteers, peak systolic RV KE (KERV ) were 4.89 ± 1.49 mJ using TR and 5.53 ± 1.62 mJ using TA segmentation (P = 0.016); peak systolic LV KE (KELV ) were 3.29 ± 0.96 mJ and 4.16 ± 1.26 mJ (P = 0.005). Peak diastolic KERV were 3.33 ± 0.90 mJ (TR) and 3.61 ± 1.12 mJ (TA) (P = 0.082), while peak diastolic KELV were 4.90 ± 1.49 mJ and 5.31 ± 1.59 mJ (P = 0.044). In patient volunteers, peak systolic KERV were 4.34 ± 3.78 mJ using TR and 4.88 ± 3.98 mJ using TA segmentation (P = 0.26); peak systolic KELV were 4.39 ± 4.21 mJ and 4.36 ± 3.84 mJ (P = 0.91). Peak diastolic KERV were 3.34 ± 2.08 mJ (TR) and 4.05 ± 1.12 mJ (TA) (P = 0.08), while peak diastolic KELV were 4.34 ± 5.11 mJ and 4.06 ± 3.47 mJ (P = 0.75). Interobserver differences in KELV were greater for TR than TA calculations; bias ranged from 3 ± 30% for TA peak systolic KELV to 36 ± 30% for TR peak diastolic KELV . CONCLUSION: Although qualitatively similar, KE values calculated through TA segmentation were consistently greater than TR KE, with differences more pronounced during systole and in the LV. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2017;45:821-828.
Authors: Vivian P Kamphuis; Jos J M Westenberg; Roel L F van der Palen; Pieter J van den Boogaard; Rob J van der Geest; Albert de Roos; Nico A Blom; Arno A W Roest; Mohammed S M Elbaz Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2018-01-05 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Judith T Pruijssen; Bradley D Allen; Alex J Barker; Robert O Bonow; Lubna Choudhury; James C Carr; Michael Markl; Pim van Ooij Journal: Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging Date: 2020-02-27
Authors: Philip A Corrado; Andrew L Wentland; Jitka Starekova; Archana Dhyani; Kara N Goss; Oliver Wieben Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2022-02-17 Impact factor: 7.034
Authors: David R Rutkowski; Gregory P Barton; Christopher J François; Niti Aggarwal; Alejandro Roldán-Alzate Journal: Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging Date: 2020-02-27
Authors: Mohammed S M Elbaz; Rob J van der Geest; Emmeline E Calkoen; Albert de Roos; Boudewijn P F Lelieveldt; Arno A W Roest; Jos J M Westenberg Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2016-02-28 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Jacob A Macdonald; Arij G Beshish; Philip A Corrado; Gregory P Barton; Kara N Goss; Marlowe W Eldridge; Christopher J François; Oliver Wieben Journal: Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging Date: 2020-06-18
Authors: Pankaj Garg; Saul Crandon; Peter P Swoboda; Graham J Fent; James R J Foley; Pei G Chew; Louise A E Brown; Sethumadhavan Vijayan; Mariëlla E C J Hassell; Robin Nijveldt; Malenka Bissell; Mohammed S M Elbaz; Abdallah Al-Mohammad; Jos J M Westenberg; John P Greenwood; Rob J van der Geest; Sven Plein; Erica Dall'Armellina Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2018-08-30 Impact factor: 5.364