K L Ruedinger1, E C Harvey2, S Schafer3, M A Speidel2, C M Strother4. 1. From the Department of Biomedical Engineering (K.L.R.) klruedinger@wisc.edu. 2. Department of Medical Physics (E.H., M.A.S.). 3. Siemens Healthineers Forchheim Germany (S.S.), Hoffman Estates, Illinois. 4. Department of Radiology (C.M.S.), University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Quantification of blood flow using a 4D-DSA would be useful in the diagnosis and treatment of cerebrovascular diseases. A protocol optimizing identification of density variations in the time-density curves of a 4D-DSA has not been defined. Our purpose was to determine the contrast injection protocol most likely to result in the optimal pulsatility signal strength. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two 3D-printed patient-specific models were used and connected to a pulsatile pump and flow system, which delivered 250-260 mL/min to the model. Contrast medium (Isovue, 370 mg I/mL, 75% dilution) was injected through a 6F catheter positioned upstream from the inlet of the model. 4D-DSA acquisitions were performed for the following injection rates: 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 and 3.5 mL/s for 8 seconds. To determine pulsatility, we analyzed the time-density curve at the inlets using the oscillation amplitude and a previously described numeric metric, the sideband ratio. Vascular geometry from 4D-DSA reconstructions was compared with ground truth and micro-CT measurements of the model. Dimensionless numbers that characterize hemodynamics, Reynolds and Craya-Curtet, were calculated for each injection rate. RESULTS: The strongest pulsatility signal occurred with the 2.5 mL/s injections. The largest oscillation amplitudes were found with 2.0- and 2.5-mL/s injections. Geometric accuracy was best preserved with injection rates of >1.5 mL/s. CONCLUSIONS: An injection rate of 2.5 mL/s provided the strongest pulsatility signal in the 4D-DSA time-density curve. Geometric accuracy was best preserved with injection rates above 1.5 mL/s. These results may be useful in future in vivo studies of blood flow quantification.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Quantification of blood flow using a 4D-DSA would be useful in the diagnosis and treatment of cerebrovascular diseases. A protocol optimizing identification of density variations in the time-density curves of a 4D-DSA has not been defined. Our purpose was to determine the contrast injection protocol most likely to result in the optimal pulsatility signal strength. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two 3D-printed patient-specific models were used and connected to a pulsatile pump and flow system, which delivered 250-260 mL/min to the model. Contrast medium (Isovue, 370 mg I/mL, 75% dilution) was injected through a 6F catheter positioned upstream from the inlet of the model. 4D-DSA acquisitions were performed for the following injection rates: 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 and 3.5 mL/s for 8 seconds. To determine pulsatility, we analyzed the time-density curve at the inlets using the oscillation amplitude and a previously described numeric metric, the sideband ratio. Vascular geometry from 4D-DSA reconstructions was compared with ground truth and micro-CT measurements of the model. Dimensionless numbers that characterize hemodynamics, Reynolds and Craya-Curtet, were calculated for each injection rate. RESULTS: The strongest pulsatility signal occurred with the 2.5 mL/s injections. The largest oscillation amplitudes were found with 2.0- and 2.5-mL/s injections. Geometric accuracy was best preserved with injection rates of >1.5 mL/s. CONCLUSIONS: An injection rate of 2.5 mL/s provided the strongest pulsatility signal in the 4D-DSA time-density curve. Geometric accuracy was best preserved with injection rates above 1.5 mL/s. These results may be useful in future in vivo studies of blood flow quantification.
Authors: V Mendes Pereira; R Ouared; O Brina; O Bonnefous; J Satwiaski; H Aerts; D Ruijters; F van Nijnatten; F Perren; P Bijlenga; K Schaller; K-O Lovblad Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-08-08 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Y Wu; G Shaughnessy; C A Hoffman; E L Oberstar; S Schafer; T Schubert; K L Ruedinger; B J Davis; C A Mistretta; C M Strother; M A Speidel Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2018-09-13 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Andrew D Copeland; Rami S Mangoubi; Mukund N Desai; Sanjoy K Mitter; Adel M Malek Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2010-02-17 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: R A Kruger; C A Mistretta; T L Houk; S J Riederer; C G Shaw; M M Goodsitt; A B Crummy; W Zwiebel; J C Lancaster; G G Rowe; D Flemming Journal: Radiology Date: 1979-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Katrina L Ruedinger; David R Rutkowski; Sebastian Schafer; Alejandro Roldán-Alzate; Erick L Oberstar; Charles Strother Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2017-04-06 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: Gabe Shaughnessy; Sebastian Schafer; Michael A Speidel; Charles M Strother; Charles A Mistretta Journal: Med Phys Date: 2018-09-06 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: K H Narsinh; K Mueller; J Nelson; J Massachi; D C Murph; A Z Copelan; S W Hetts; V V Halbach; R T Higashida; A A Abla; M R Amans; C F Dowd; H Kim; D L Cooke Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-10-29 Impact factor: 3.825