Literature DB >> 27942477

The effect of reducing spatial resolution by in-plane partial volume averaging on peak velocity measurements in phase contrast magnetic resonance angiography.

Jonathan Rodrigues1, Kishore Minhas1, Guido Pieles2, Elisa McAlindon3, Christopher Occleshaw4, Nathan Manghat1, Mark Hamilton1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to quantify the degree of the effect of in-plane partial volume averaging on recorded peak velocity in phase contrast magnetic resonance angiography (PCMRA).
METHODS: Using cardiac optimized 1.5 Tesla MRI scanners (Siemens Symphony and Avanto), 145 flow measurements (14 anatomical locations; ventricular outlets, aortic valve (AorV), aorta (5 sites), pulmonary arteries (3 sites), pulmonary veins, superior and inferior vena cava)- in 37 subjects (consisting of healthy volunteers, congenital and acquired heart disease patients) were analyzed by Siemens Argus default voxel averaging technique (where peak velocity = mean of highest velocity voxel and four neighbouring voxels) and by single voxel technique (1.3×1.3×5 or 1.7×1.7×5.5 mm3) (where peak velocity = highest velocity voxel only). The effect of scan protocol (breath hold versus free breathing) and scanner type (Siemens Symphony versus Siemens Avanto) were also assessed. Statistical significance was defined as P<0.05.
RESULTS: There was a significant mean increase in peak velocity of 7.1% when single voxel technique was used compared to voxel averaging (P<0.0001). Significant increases in peak velocity were observed by single voxel technique compared to voxel averaging regardless of subject type, anatomical flow location, scanner type and breathing command. Disabling voxel averaging did not affect the volume of flow recorded.
CONCLUSIONS: Reducing spatial resolution by the use of voxel averaging produces a significant underestimation of peak velocity. While this is of itself not surprising this is the first report to quantify the size of the effect. When PCMRA is used to assess peak velocity recording pixel averaging should be disabled.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Phase-contrast magnetic resonance imaging; cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR); spatial resolution

Year:  2016        PMID: 27942477      PMCID: PMC5130569          DOI: 10.21037/qims.2016.10.06

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg        ISSN: 2223-4306


  19 in total

1.  Cerebral embolism following transcatheter aortic valve implantation: comparison of transfemoral and transapical approaches.

Authors:  Josep Rodés-Cabau; Eric Dumont; Robert H Boone; Eric Larose; Rodrigo Bagur; Ronen Gurvitch; Fernand Bédard; Daniel Doyle; Robert De Larochellière; Cleonie Jayasuria; Jacques Villeneuve; Alier Marrero; Mélanie Côté; Philippe Pibarot; John G Webb
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2011-01-04       Impact factor: 24.094

Review 2.  Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging for valvular heart disease: technique and validation.

Authors:  Peter J Cawley; Jeffrey H Maki; Catherine M Otto
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2009-01-27       Impact factor: 29.690

3.  Flow quantification using fast cine phase-contrast MR imaging, conventional cine phase-contrast MR imaging, and Doppler sonography: in vitro and in vivo validation.

Authors:  V S Lee; C E Spritzer; B A Carroll; L G Pool; M A Bernstein; S K Heinle; J R MacFall
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Evaluation of aortic valve stenosis using cardiovascular magnetic resonance: comparison of an original semiautomated analysis of phase-contrast cardiovascular magnetic resonance with Doppler echocardiography.

Authors:  Carine Defrance; Emilie Bollache; Nadjia Kachenoura; Ludivine Perdrix; Nataliya Hrynchyshyn; Eric Bruguière; Alban Redheuil; Benoit Diebold; Elie Mousseaux
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2012-07-13       Impact factor: 7.792

5.  Practical value of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging for clinical quantification of aortic valve stenosis: comparison with echocardiography.

Authors:  Shelton D Caruthers; Shiow Jiuan Lin; Peggy Brown; Mary P Watkins; Todd A Williams; Katherine A Lehr; Samuel A Wickline
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2003-10-20       Impact factor: 29.690

Review 6.  Evaluation of cardiac valvular disease with MR imaging: qualitative and quantitative techniques.

Authors:  James F Glockner; Donald L Johnston; Kiaran P McGee
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2003 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.333

Review 7.  Heart valve disease: investigation by cardiovascular magnetic resonance.

Authors:  Saul G Myerson
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson       Date:  2012-01-19       Impact factor: 5.364

8.  Cardiovascular magnetic resonance evaluation of aortic stenosis severity using single plane measurement of effective orifice area.

Authors:  Julio Garcia; Oscar R Marrufo; Alfredo O Rodriguez; Eric Larose; Philippe Pibarot; Lyes Kadem
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson       Date:  2012-04-06       Impact factor: 5.364

9.  Discrepancies between cardiovascular magnetic resonance and Doppler echocardiography in the measurement of transvalvular gradient in aortic stenosis: the effect of flow vorticity.

Authors:  Julio Garcia; Romain Capoulade; Florent Le Ven; Emmanuel Gaillard; Lyes Kadem; Philippe Pibarot; Éric Larose
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson       Date:  2013-09-20       Impact factor: 5.364

10.  Aortic valve stenotic area calculation from phase contrast cardiovascular magnetic resonance: the importance of short echo time.

Authors:  Kieran R O'Brien; Ruvin S Gabriel; Andreas Greiser; Brett R Cowan; Alistair A Young; Andrew J Kerr
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson       Date:  2009-11-19       Impact factor: 5.364

View more
  2 in total

1.  Assessment of thoracic vasculature in patients with central bronchogenic carcinoma by unenhanced magnetic resonance angiography: comparison between 2D free-breathing TrueFISP, 2D breath-hold TrueFISP and 3D respiratory-triggered SPACE.

Authors:  Lili Wang; Peng Lv; Shuohui Yang; Mengsu Zeng; Jiang Lin
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 2.895

2.  Quantification in cardiovascular magnetic resonance: agreement of software from three different vendors on assessment of left ventricular function, 2D flow and parametric mapping.

Authors:  Leonora Zange; Fabian Muehlberg; Edyta Blaszczyk; Susanne Schwenke; Julius Traber; Stephanie Funk; Jeanette Schulz-Menger
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson       Date:  2019-02-21       Impact factor: 5.364

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.