Kelly Jarvis1,2, Susanne Schnell1, Alex J Barker1, Michael Rose3, Joshua D Robinson1,3,4,5, Cynthia K Rigsby1,3,4,5, Michael Markl1,2. 1. Department of Radiology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. 2. Department of Biomedical Engineering, McCormick School of Engineering, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. 3. Department of Medical Imaging, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. 4. Department of Pediatrics, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. 5. Division of Cardiology, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Uneven flow distribution in patients with Fontan circulation is suspected to lead to complications. 4D flow MRI offers evaluation using time-resolved pathlines; however, the potential error is not well understood. The aim of this study was to systematically assess variability in flow distribution caused by well-known sources of error. METHODS: 4D flow MRI was acquired in 14 patients with Fontan circulation. Flow distribution was quantified by the % of caval venous flow pathlines reaching the left and right pulmonary arteries. Impact of data acquisition and data processing uncertainties were investigated by (1) probabilistic 4D blood flow tracking at varying noise levels, (2) down-sampling to mimic acquisition at different spatial resolutions, (3) pathline calculation with and without eddy current correction, and (4) varied segmentation of the Fontan geometry to mimic analysis errors. RESULTS: Averaged among the cohort, uncertainties accounted for flow distribution errors from noise ≤3.2%, low spatial resolution ≤2.3% to 3.8%, eddy currents ≤6.4%, and inaccurate segmentation ≤3.9% to 9.1% (dilation and erosion, respectively). In a worst-case scenario (maximum additive errors for all 4 sources), flow distribution errors were as high as 22.5%. CONCLUSION: Inaccuracies related to postprocessing (segmentation, eddy currents) resulted in the largest potential error (≤15.5% combined) whereas errors related to data acquisition (noise, low spatial resolution) had a lower impact (≤5.5%-7.0% combined). Whereas it is unlikely that these errors will be additive or affect the identification of severe asymmetry, these results illustrate the importance of eddy current correction and accurate segmentation to minimize Fontan flow distribution errors.
PURPOSE: Uneven flow distribution in patients with Fontan circulation is suspected to lead to complications. 4D flow MRI offers evaluation using time-resolved pathlines; however, the potential error is not well understood. The aim of this study was to systematically assess variability in flow distribution caused by well-known sources of error. METHODS: 4D flow MRI was acquired in 14 patients with Fontan circulation. Flow distribution was quantified by the % of caval venous flow pathlines reaching the left and right pulmonary arteries. Impact of data acquisition and data processing uncertainties were investigated by (1) probabilistic 4D blood flow tracking at varying noise levels, (2) down-sampling to mimic acquisition at different spatial resolutions, (3) pathline calculation with and without eddy current correction, and (4) varied segmentation of the Fontan geometry to mimic analysis errors. RESULTS: Averaged among the cohort, uncertainties accounted for flow distribution errors from noise ≤3.2%, low spatial resolution ≤2.3% to 3.8%, eddy currents ≤6.4%, and inaccurate segmentation ≤3.9% to 9.1% (dilation and erosion, respectively). In a worst-case scenario (maximum additive errors for all 4 sources), flow distribution errors were as high as 22.5%. CONCLUSION: Inaccuracies related to postprocessing (segmentation, eddy currents) resulted in the largest potential error (≤15.5% combined) whereas errors related to data acquisition (noise, low spatial resolution) had a lower impact (≤5.5%-7.0% combined). Whereas it is unlikely that these errors will be additive or affect the identification of severe asymmetry, these results illustrate the importance of eddy current correction and accurate segmentation to minimize Fontan flow distribution errors.
Authors: Mark A Griswold; Peter M Jakob; Robin M Heidemann; Mathias Nittka; Vladimir Jellus; Jianmin Wang; Berthold Kiefer; Axel Haase Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Ola Friman; Anja Hennemuth; Andreas Harloff; Jelena Bock; Michael Markl; Heinz-Otto Peitgen Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2011-06-07 Impact factor: 8.545
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: D Srivastava; T Preminger; J E Lock; V Mandell; J F Keane; J E Mayer; H Kozakewich; P J Spevak Journal: Circulation Date: 1995-09-01 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Rene Bastkowski; Robert Bindermann; Konrad Brockmeier; Kilian Weiss; David Maintz; Daniel Giese Journal: Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging Date: 2019-10-31
Authors: Friso M Rijnberg; Hans C van Assen; Joe F Juffermans; Lucia J M Kroft; Pieter J van den Boogaard; Patrick J H de Koning; Mark G Hazekamp; Séline F S van der Woude; Evangeline G Warmerdam; Tim Leiner; Heynric B Grotenhuis; Jelle J Goeman; Hildo J Lamb; Arno A W Roest; Jos J M Westenberg Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-03-22 Impact factor: 4.379