Literature DB >> 31742787

Flow quantification dependency on background phase correction techniques in 4D-flow MRI.

Fraser M Callaghan1,2, Barbara Burkhardt2,3, Julia Geiger2,4, Emanuela R Valsangiacomo Buechel2,3, Christian J Kellenberger2,4.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To analyze the dependence of flow volume measurements on 3D cine phase-contrast MRI (4D-flow MRI) background phase correction.
METHODS: In 31 subjects scanned on a 1.5T MRI scanner, flow volume measurements at 4 vessels were made using phantom corrected 2D phase contrast and 4D flow with background phase correction performed by linear, second, third, and fourth-order polynomial fitting to static tissue. Variations in the amount and distribution of static tissue were made to investigate the influence on flow volume measurements.
RESULTS: Bland Altman comparison of 2D phase-contrast and 4D-flow measurements showed low bias (2.3%-4.8%) and relatively large limits of agreement (13.5%-17.6%). Approximately half of this was attributable to sequence and physiological differences between the 2 scan sequences, demonstrated by smaller limits of agreement (5.3%-10.0%) when comparing 4D-flow measurements with differing background phase corrections. Using only 20% of available static tissue points for polynomial fitting resulted in only 1% difference in flow volume measurements. Using asymmetrically distributed static tissue or including nonstatic tissue for polynomial fitting yielded highly variable differences in flow volume measurements, which became more variable with increased polynomial order. Completely asymmetric static tissue selection resulted in high deviations in flow volume measurements (mean > 7%, max = 345%).
CONCLUSION: Comparisons between 2D phase-contrast and 4D-flow volume measurements should consider influences from sequence and physiological differences. A subset of static tissue points may be used with low impact on flow measurements, but should avoid the inclusion of nonstatic tissue and avoid asymmetric distribution. Higher-order polynomial fits are more susceptible to inaccurate static tissue selection.
© 2019 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  4D flow; background phase correction; eddy currents; flow volume; phase contrast

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31742787     DOI: 10.1002/mrm.28085

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Magn Reson Med        ISSN: 0740-3194            Impact factor:   4.668


  2 in total

1.  Deep Learning Automated Background Phase Error Correction for Abdominopelvic 4D Flow MRI.

Authors:  Sophie You; Evan M Masutani; Marcus T Alley; Shreyas S Vasanawala; Pam R Taub; Joy Liau; Anne C Roberts; Albert Hsiao
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2021-11-30       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Whole-brain mapping of mouse CSF flow via HEAP-METRIC phase-contrast MRI.

Authors:  Juchen Li; Mengchao Pei; Binshi Bo; Xinxin Zhao; Jing Cang; Fang Fang; Zhifeng Liang
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2022-02-02       Impact factor: 3.737

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.