Timothy Ruesink1, Rafael Medero2, David Rutkowski2, Alejandro Roldán-Alzate2,3,4. 1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, WI, USA. truesink@wisc.edu. 2. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, WI, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, WI, USA. 4. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, WI, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Arterial stiffness has predictive value for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Local artery stiffness can provide insight on CVD pathology and may be useful for diagnosis and prognosis. However, current methods are invasive, require real-time expertise for measurement, or are limited by arterial region. 4D Flow MRI can non-invasively measure local stiffness by estimating local pulse wave velocity (PWV). This technique can be applied to vascular regions, previously accessible only by invasive stiffness measurement methods. MRI PWV data can also be analyzed post-exam. However, 4D Flow MRI requires validation before it is used in vivo to measure local PWV. METHODS: PWV, calculated from 4D Flow MRI and a benchtop experiment, was compared with petersons elastic modulus (PEM) of in vitro models. PEM was calculated using high-speed camera images and pressure transducers. Three transit-time algorithms were analyzed for PWV measurement accuracy and precision. RESULTS: PWV from 4D Flow MRI and reference benchtop experiments show strong correlation with PEM (R2 = 0.99). The cross correlation transit-time algorithm showed the lowest percent difference between 4D Flow MRI and benchtop experiments (4-7%), and the point to point of 50% upstroke algorithm had the highest transit-time vs. distance data average R2 (0.845). CONCLUSION: 4D Flow MRI is a feasible method for estimating local PWV in simple in vitro models and is a viable tool for clinical analysis. In addition, choice in transit-time algorithm depends on flow waveform shape and arterial region. This study strengthens the validity of 4D Flow MRI local PWV measurement in simple models. However, this technique requires validation in more complex models before it is used in vivo.
PURPOSE: Arterial stiffness has predictive value for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Local artery stiffness can provide insight on CVD pathology and may be useful for diagnosis and prognosis. However, current methods are invasive, require real-time expertise for measurement, or are limited by arterial region. 4D Flow MRI can non-invasively measure local stiffness by estimating local pulse wave velocity (PWV). This technique can be applied to vascular regions, previously accessible only by invasive stiffness measurement methods. MRI PWV data can also be analyzed post-exam. However, 4D Flow MRI requires validation before it is used in vivo to measure local PWV. METHODS: PWV, calculated from 4D Flow MRI and a benchtop experiment, was compared with petersons elastic modulus (PEM) of in vitro models. PEM was calculated using high-speed camera images and pressure transducers. Three transit-time algorithms were analyzed for PWV measurement accuracy and precision. RESULTS: PWV from 4D Flow MRI and reference benchtop experiments show strong correlation with PEM (R2 = 0.99). The cross correlation transit-time algorithm showed the lowest percent difference between 4D Flow MRI and benchtop experiments (4-7%), and the point to point of 50% upstroke algorithm had the highest transit-time vs. distance data average R2 (0.845). CONCLUSION: 4D Flow MRI is a feasible method for estimating local PWV in simple in vitro models and is a viable tool for clinical analysis. In addition, choice in transit-time algorithm depends on flow waveform shape and arterial region. This study strengthens the validity of 4D Flow MRI local PWV measurement in simple models. However, this technique requires validation in more complex models before it is used in vivo.
Authors: Michael Markl; Wolf Wallis; Christoph Strecker; Beryl Primrose Gladstone; Werner Vach; Andreas Harloff Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-01-23 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Sandrine C Millasseau; Andrew D Stewart; Sundip J Patel; Simon R Redwood; Philip J Chowienczyk Journal: Hypertension Date: 2005-01-10 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Pierre Boutouyrie; Danilo Fliser; David Goldsmith; Adrian Covic; Andrzej Wiecek; Alberto Ortiz; Alberto Martinez-Castelao; Bengt Lindholm; Ziad A Massy; Gultekin Suleymanlar; Rosa Sicari; Luna Gargani; Gianfranco Parati; Francesca Mallamaci; Carmine Zoccali; Gerard M London Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2013-09-30 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Michael Markl; Wolf Wallis; Stefanie Brendecke; Jan Simon; Alex Frydrychowicz; Andreas Harloff Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Thomas T van Sloten; Miranda T Schram; Katja van den Hurk; Jacqueline M Dekker; Giel Nijpels; Ronald M A Henry; Coen D A Stehouwer Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-02-26 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Andrew L Wentland; Oliver Wieben; Chris J François; Christina Boncyk; Alejandro Munoz Del Rio; Kevin M Johnson; Thomas M Grist; Alex Frydrychowicz Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-11-02 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Leonardo A Rivera-Rivera; Karly A Cody; Laura Eisenmenger; Paul Cary; Howard A Rowley; Cynthia M Carlsson; Sterling C Johnson; Kevin M Johnson Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2020-03-13 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Philip A Corrado; Rafael Medero; Kevin M Johnson; Christopher J François; Alejandro Roldán-Alzate; Oliver Wieben Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2021-02-05 Impact factor: 3.737
Authors: Leonardo A Rivera-Rivera; Laura Eisenmenger; Karly A Cody; Thomas Reher; Tobey Betthauser; Robert V Cadman; Howard A Rowley; Cynthia M Carlsson; Nathaniel A Chin; Sterling C Johnson; Kevin M Johnson Journal: Alzheimers Dement (Amst) Date: 2021-12-31