Jelena Bock1, Johannes Töger1,2, Sebastian Bidhult1,3, Karin Markenroth Bloch4,5, Per Arvidsson1, Mikael Kanski1, Håkan Arheden1, Frederik Testud6, Andreas Greiser7, Einar Heiberg1,3, Marcus Carlsson1. 1. 1 Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Clinical Physiology, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden. 2. 2 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden. 3. 3 Department of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. 4. 4 Philips Healthcare, Lund, Sweden. 5. 5 Lund University Bioimaging Center, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. 6. 6 Siemens Healthcare AB, Malmö, Sweden. 7. 7 Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Erlangen, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: 4D-flow magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly used. PURPOSE: To validate 4D-flow sequences in phantom and in vivo, comparing volume flow and kinetic energy (KE) head-to-head, with and without respiratory gating. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Achieva dStream (Philips Healthcare) and MAGNETOM Aera (Siemens Healthcare) 1.5-T scanners were used. Phantom validation measured pulsatile, three-dimensional flow with 4D-flow MRI and laser particle imaging velocimetry (PIV) as reference standard. Ten healthy participants underwent three cardiac MRI examinations each, consisting of cine-imaging, 2D-flow (aorta, pulmonary artery), and 2 × 2 accelerated 4D-flow with (Resp+) and without (Resp-) respiratory gating. Examinations were acquired consecutively on both scanners and one examination repeated within two weeks. Volume flow in the great vessels was compared between 2D- and 4D-flow. KE were calculated for all time phases and voxels in the left ventricle. RESULTS: Phantom results showed high accuracy and precision for both scanners. In vivo, higher accuracy and precision ( P < 0.001) was found for volume flow for the Aera prototype with Resp+ (-3.7 ± 10.4 mL, r = 0.89) compared to the Achieva product sequence (-17.8 ± 18.6 mL, r = 0.56). 4D-flow Resp- on Aera had somewhat larger bias (-9.3 ± 9.6 mL, r = 0.90) compared to Resp+ ( P = 0.005). KE measurements showed larger differences between scanners on the same day compared to the same scanner at different days. CONCLUSION: Sequence-specific in vivo validation of 4D-flow is needed before clinical use. 4D-flow with the Aera prototype sequence with a clinically acceptable acquisition time (<10 min) showed acceptable bias in healthy controls to be considered for clinical use. Intra-individual KE comparisons should use the same sequence.
BACKGROUND: 4D-flow magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly used. PURPOSE: To validate 4D-flow sequences in phantom and in vivo, comparing volume flow and kinetic energy (KE) head-to-head, with and without respiratory gating. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Achieva dStream (Philips Healthcare) and MAGNETOM Aera (Siemens Healthcare) 1.5-T scanners were used. Phantom validation measured pulsatile, three-dimensional flow with 4D-flow MRI and laser particle imaging velocimetry (PIV) as reference standard. Ten healthy participants underwent three cardiac MRI examinations each, consisting of cine-imaging, 2D-flow (aorta, pulmonary artery), and 2 × 2 accelerated 4D-flow with (Resp+) and without (Resp-) respiratory gating. Examinations were acquired consecutively on both scanners and one examination repeated within two weeks. Volume flow in the great vessels was compared between 2D- and 4D-flow. KE were calculated for all time phases and voxels in the left ventricle. RESULTS: Phantom results showed high accuracy and precision for both scanners. In vivo, higher accuracy and precision ( P < 0.001) was found for volume flow for the Aera prototype with Resp+ (-3.7 ± 10.4 mL, r = 0.89) compared to the Achieva product sequence (-17.8 ± 18.6 mL, r = 0.56). 4D-flow Resp- on Aera had somewhat larger bias (-9.3 ± 9.6 mL, r = 0.90) compared to Resp+ ( P = 0.005). KE measurements showed larger differences between scanners on the same day compared to the same scanner at different days. CONCLUSION: Sequence-specific in vivo validation of 4D-flow is needed before clinical use. 4D-flow with the Aera prototype sequence with a clinically acceptable acquisition time (<10 min) showed acceptable bias in healthy controls to be considered for clinical use. Intra-individual KE comparisons should use the same sequence.
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: Anneloes de Boer; Giulia Villa; Octavia Bane; Michael Bock; Eleanor F Cox; Ilona A Dekkers; Per Eckerbom; Maria A Fernández-Seara; Susan T Francis; Bryan Haddock; Michael E Hall; Pauline Hall Barrientos; Ingo Hermann; Paul D Hockings; Hildo J Lamb; Christoffer Laustsen; Ruth P Lim; David M Morris; Steffen Ringgaard; Suraj D Serai; Kanishka Sharma; Steven Sourbron; Yasuo Takehara; Andrew L Wentland; Marcos Wolf; Frank G Zöllner; Fabio Nery; Anna Caroli Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2020-11-02 Impact factor: 5.119
Authors: Ricardo A Gonzales; Felicia Seemann; Jérôme Lamy; Hamid Mojibian; Dan Atar; David Erlinge; Katarina Steding-Ehrenborg; Håkan Arheden; Chenxi Hu; John A Onofrey; Dana C Peters; Einar Heiberg Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2021-12-02 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Per M Arvidsson; Anders Nelsson; Martin Magnusson; J Gustav Smith; Marcus Carlsson; Håkan Arheden Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-03-07 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Ferit Onur Mutluer; Nikki van der Velde; Jason Voorneveld; Johan G Bosch; Jolien W Roos-Hesselink; Rob J van der Geest; Alexander Hirsch; Annemien van den Bosch Journal: Cardiovasc Ultrasound Date: 2021-12-08 Impact factor: 2.062
Authors: Sophie Paddock; Vasiliki Tsampasian; Hosamadin Assadi; Bruno Calife Mota; Andrew J Swift; Amrit Chowdhary; Peter Swoboda; Eylem Levelt; Eva Sammut; Amardeep Dastidar; Jordi Broncano Cabrero; Javier Royuela Del Val; Paul Malcolm; Julia Sun; Alisdair Ryding; Chris Sawh; Richard Greenwood; David Hewson; Vassilios Vassiliou; Pankaj Garg Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2021-07-07