BACKGROUND: Complex and reverse flow in the aorta has been implicated in aneurysm development and stroke via retrograde embolization. PURPOSE: To evaluate global and regional differences between standard 2D plane-based and volumetric voxel-based quantification of regional forward/reverse flow, and reverse flow fraction (RFF) in the aorta. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective. SUBJECTS: In all, 35 subjects: 10 healthy controls (age: 57 ± 7 years, nine male), nine patients without aortic valve regurgitation (AR) (age: 63 ± 10 years, seven male), six patients with mild AR (age: 66 ± 6 years, five male), and 10 with moderate or severe AR (age: 60 ± 16 years, eight male). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 4D flow MRI (3T and 1.5T) was employed to acquire 3D blood flow velocities with entire thoracic aorta in all subjects. ASSESSMENT: Data analysis included standard 2D plane-based quantification of forward/reverse flow, and RFF-plane. In addition, a new semiautomatic workflow based on 3D segmentation and extraction of an aorta centerline was developed for voxel-by-voxel visualization (forward/reverse flow and RFF-voxel maps) and quantification of regional voxel-by-voxel forward/reverse flow in the entire thoracic aorta. STATISTICAL TESTS: Kruskal-Wallis tests were performed to test for differences between groups. A two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare voxel-based and plane-based results. RESULTS: Semiautomatic plane-based analysis showed excellent agreement with standard manual plane-based analysis for net flow and RFF-plane (RFF-plane: y = 0.99x-0.0, net flow: y = 1.00x-0.21, R > 0.99, P < 0.0001). Voxel-by-voxel maps demonstrated marked regional flow reversal in the ascending aorta in all patients and RFF-voxel was significantly increased (P < 0.001) compared to RFF-plane for all four groups, with the most pronounced differences for mild AR (18.0 ± 15.2% vs. 4.7 ± 5.4%). Voxel-based flow and RFF-voxel along the aorta showed areas with marked regional flow reversal (eg, vortex flow) compared to plane-based analysis. DATA CONCLUSION: Voxel-based analysis demonstrated regional flow reversal that was not detected by plane-based analysis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 1 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:1276-1286.
BACKGROUND: Complex and reverse flow in the aorta has been implicated in aneurysm development and stroke via retrograde embolization. PURPOSE: To evaluate global and regional differences between standard 2D plane-based and volumetric voxel-based quantification of regional forward/reverse flow, and reverse flow fraction (RFF) in the aorta. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective. SUBJECTS: In all, 35 subjects: 10 healthy controls (age: 57 ± 7 years, nine male), nine patients without aortic valve regurgitation (AR) (age: 63 ± 10 years, seven male), six patients with mild AR (age: 66 ± 6 years, five male), and 10 with moderate or severe AR (age: 60 ± 16 years, eight male). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 4D flow MRI (3T and 1.5T) was employed to acquire 3D blood flow velocities with entire thoracic aorta in all subjects. ASSESSMENT: Data analysis included standard 2D plane-based quantification of forward/reverse flow, and RFF-plane. In addition, a new semiautomatic workflow based on 3D segmentation and extraction of an aorta centerline was developed for voxel-by-voxel visualization (forward/reverse flow and RFF-voxel maps) and quantification of regional voxel-by-voxel forward/reverse flow in the entire thoracic aorta. STATISTICAL TESTS: Kruskal-Wallis tests were performed to test for differences between groups. A two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare voxel-based and plane-based results. RESULTS: Semiautomatic plane-based analysis showed excellent agreement with standard manual plane-based analysis for net flow and RFF-plane (RFF-plane: y = 0.99x-0.0, net flow: y = 1.00x-0.21, R > 0.99, P < 0.0001). Voxel-by-voxel maps demonstrated marked regional flow reversal in the ascending aorta in all patients and RFF-voxel was significantly increased (P < 0.001) compared to RFF-plane for all four groups, with the most pronounced differences for mild AR (18.0 ± 15.2% vs. 4.7 ± 5.4%). Voxel-based flow and RFF-voxel along the aorta showed areas with marked regional flow reversal (eg, vortex flow) compared to plane-based analysis. DATA CONCLUSION: Voxel-based analysis demonstrated regional flow reversal that was not detected by plane-based analysis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 1 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:1276-1286.
Authors: Damien Garcia; Juan C Del Alamo; David Tanne; Raquel Yotti; Cristina Cortina; Eric Bertrand; José Carlos Antoranz; Esther Perez-David; Régis Rieu; Francisco Fernandez-Aviles; Javier Bermejo Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2010-06-17 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Peter D Gatehouse; Jennifer Keegan; Lindsey A Crowe; Sharmeen Masood; Raad H Mohiaddin; Karl-Friedrich Kreitner; David N Firmin Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2005-07-08 Impact factor: 5.315
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: Robert O Bonow; Blase A Carabello; Kanu Chatterjee; Antonio C de Leon; David P Faxon; Michael D Freed; William H Gaasch; Bruce Whitney Lytle; Rick A Nishimura; Patrick T O'Gara; Robert A O'Rourke; Catherine M Otto; Pravin M Shah; Jack S Shanewise; Sidney C Smith; Alice K Jacobs; Cynthia D Adams; Jeffrey L Anderson; Elliott M Antman; Valentin Fuster; Jonathan L Halperin; Loren F Hiratzka; Sharon A Hunt; Bruce W Lytle; Rick Nishimura; Richard L Page; Barbara Riegel Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2006-08-01 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Andreas Harloff; Jan Simon; Stefanie Brendecke; Dawit Assefa; Thomas Helbing; Alex Frydrychowicz; Johannes Weber; Manfred Olschewski; Christoph Strecker; Jürgen Hennig; Cornelius Weiller; Michael Markl Journal: Stroke Date: 2010-04-29 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: P G Walker; G B Cranney; M B Scheidegger; G Waseleski; G M Pohost; A P Yoganathan Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1993 May-Jun Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Patrizio Lancellotti; Christophe Tribouilloy; Andreas Hagendorff; Luis Moura; Bogdan A Popescu; Eustachio Agricola; Jean-Luc Monin; Luc A Pierard; Luigi Badano; Jose L Zamorano Journal: Eur J Echocardiogr Date: 2010-04
Authors: Thomas Wehrum; Miriam Kams; Christoph Strecker; Iulius Dragonu; Felix Günther; Annette Geibel; Johann Drexl; Anja Hennemuth; Martin Schumacher; Bernd Jung; Andreas Harloff Journal: Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2014-12-03 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: Daniel S Knight; Johannes P Schwaiger; Sylvia Krupickova; Joseph Davar; Vivek Muthurangu; J Gerry Coghlan Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2015-04-06 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Andreas Harloff; Paul Hagenlocher; Thomas Lodemann; Anja Hennemuth; Cornelius Weiller; Jürgen Hennig; Werner Vach Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-03-15 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Kelly Jarvis; Judith T Pruijssen; Andre Y Son; Bradley D Allen; Gilles Soulat; Alireza Vali; Alex J Barker; Andrew W Hoel; Mark K Eskandari; S Chris Malaisrie; James C Carr; Jeremy D Collins; Michael Markl Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-11-12 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Pim van Ooij; Emile S Farag; Carmen P S Blanken; Aart J Nederveen; Maarten Groenink; R Nils Planken; S Matthijs Boekholdt Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2021-02-15 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Patrick Geeraert; Fatemehsadat Jamalidinan; Fiona Burns; Kelly Jarvis; Michael S Bristow; Carmen Lydell; Silvia S Hidalgo Tobon; Benito de Celis Alonso; Paul W M Fedak; James A White; Julio Garcia Journal: Front Bioeng Biotechnol Date: 2022-01-13