Damian Craiem1, Ariel F Pascaner2, Mariano E Casciaro2, Umit Gencer3, Joaquin Alcibar2, Gilles Soulat3, Elie Mousseaux3. 1. Instituto de Medicina Traslacional, Trasplante y Bioingeniería (IMeTTyB), Universidad Favaloro-CONICET, Solis 453, CP 1078, Buenos Aires, Argentina. dcraiem@favaloro.edu.ar. 2. Instituto de Medicina Traslacional, Trasplante y Bioingeniería (IMeTTyB), Universidad Favaloro-CONICET, Solis 453, CP 1078, Buenos Aires, Argentina. 3. Cardiovascular Imaging Unit, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, INSERM U970, Paris, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate an automatic correction method for velocity offset errors in cardiac 4D-flow acquisitions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Velocity offset correction was done in a plane-by-plane scheme and compared to a volumetric approach. Stationary regions were automatically detected. In vitro experiments were conducted in a phantom using two orientations and two encoding velocities (Venc). First- to third-order models were fit to the time-averaged images of the three velocity components. In vivo experiments included realistic ROIs in a volunteer superimposed to a phantom. In 15 volunteers, blood flow volume of the proximal and distal descending aorta, of the pulmonary artery (Qp) and the ascending aorta (Qs) was compared. RESULTS: Offset errors were reduced after correction with a third-order model, yielding residual phantom velocities below 0.6 cm/s and 0.4% of Venc. The plane-by-plane correction method was more effective than the volumetric approach. Mean velocities through superimposed ROIs of a volunteer vs phantom were highly correlated (r2 = 0.96). The significant difference between proximal and distal descending aortic flows was decreased after correction from 8.1 to - 1.4 ml (p < 0.001) and Qp/Qs reduced from 1.08 ± 0.09 to 1.01 ± 0.05. DISCUSSION: An automatic third-order model corrected velocity offset errors in 4D-flow acquisitions, achieving acceptable levels for clinical applications.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate an automatic correction method for velocity offset errors in cardiac 4D-flow acquisitions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Velocity offset correction was done in a plane-by-plane scheme and compared to a volumetric approach. Stationary regions were automatically detected. In vitro experiments were conducted in a phantom using two orientations and two encoding velocities (Venc). First- to third-order models were fit to the time-averaged images of the three velocity components. In vivo experiments included realistic ROIs in a volunteer superimposed to a phantom. In 15 volunteers, blood flow volume of the proximal and distal descending aorta, of the pulmonary artery (Qp) and the ascending aorta (Qs) was compared. RESULTS: Offset errors were reduced after correction with a third-order model, yielding residual phantom velocities below 0.6 cm/s and 0.4% of Venc. The plane-by-plane correction method was more effective than the volumetric approach. Mean velocities through superimposed ROIs of a volunteer vs phantom were highly correlated (r2 = 0.96). The significant difference between proximal and distal descending aortic flows was decreased after correction from 8.1 to - 1.4 ml (p < 0.001) and Qp/Qs reduced from 1.08 ± 0.09 to 1.01 ± 0.05. DISCUSSION: An automatic third-order model corrected velocity offset errors in 4D-flow acquisitions, achieving acceptable levels for clinical applications.
Authors: Christian Binter; Alexander Gotschy; Simon H Sündermann; Michelle Frank; Felix C Tanner; Thomas F Lüscher; Robert Manka; Sebastian Kozerke Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 7.792
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: Albert Hsiao; Michael Lustig; Marcus T Alley; Mark Murphy; Frandics P Chan; Robert J Herfkens; Shreyas S Vasanawala Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Pim van Ooij; Bradley D Allen; Carla Contaldi; Julio Garcia; Jeremy Collins; James Carr; Lubna Choudhury; Robert O Bonow; Alex J Barker; Michael Markl Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-07-31 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Emilie Bollache; Paul W M Fedak; Pim van Ooij; Ozair Rahman; S Chris Malaisrie; Patrick M McCarthy; James C Carr; Alex Powell; Jeremy D Collins; Michael Markl; Alex J Barker Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2017-11-16 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Cynthia K Rigsby; Nicholas Hilpipre; Gary R McNeal; Gang Zhang; Emma E Boylan; Andrada R Popescu; Grace Choi; Andreas Greiser; Jie Deng Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2013-12-05
Authors: Peter D Gatehouse; Marijn P Rolf; Martin J Graves; Mark Bm Hofman; John Totman; Beat Werner; Rebecca A Quest; Yingmin Liu; Jochen von Spiczak; Matthias Dieringer; David N Firmin; Albert van Rossum; Massimo Lombardi; Juerg Schwitter; Jeanette Schulz-Menger; Philip J Kilner Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2010-01-14 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Raluca G Chelu; Annemien E van den Bosch; Matthijs van Kranenburg; Albert Hsiao; Allard T van den Hoven; Mohamed Ouhlous; Ricardo P J Budde; Kirsten M Beniest; Laurens E Swart; Adriaan Coenen; Marisa M Lubbers; Piotr A Wielopolski; Shreyas S Vasanawala; Jolien W Roos-Hesselink; Koen Nieman Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Thekla H Oechtering; Grant S Roberts; Nikolaos Panagiotopoulos; Oliver Wieben; Alejandro Roldán-Alzate; Scott B Reeder Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2021-11-27