Sean Callahan1,2, Narayana S Singam3, Michael Kendrick2, M J Negahdar4, Hui Wang5, Marcus F Stoddard2,3, Amir A Amini1,2. 1. Medical Imaging Lab, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, USA. 2. Robley Rex Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Louisville, Kentucky, USA. 3. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Louisville, School of Medicine, Louisville, Kentucky, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, USA. 5. Philips Healthcare, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Single Venc 4D flow MRI with Cartesian readout is hampered by poor velocity resolution and noise when imaging during diastole. Dual Venc acquisitions typically require the acquisition of two distinct datasets, which leads to longer scan times. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: To design and develop a 4D Spiral Dual Venc sequence. The sequence allows for separate systolic and diastolic Venc s as part of a single acquisition with a prescribed switch time. The implemented sequence was hypothesized to be comparable to Cartesian 4D flow, but with increased velocity resolution in the diastolic phase and with better scan efficiency and reduced noise. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. POPULATION: The studied populations were two phantoms-a straight pipe with a stenotic narrowing and a phantom of the aortic arch which included a calcific polymeric valve-under both steady and pulsatile flows, six healthy volunteers, and eight patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 1.5T, Dual Venc 4D flow with spiral readouts. ASSESSMENT: Data from the proposed sequence were compared with data from 4D Cartesian Dual Venc and Single Venc acquisitions. Noise was assessed from the acquired velocity data with the pump turned off and by varying Venc . Steady acquisitions were compared to the proximal slice of the lowest Single Venc acquisition. STATISTICAL TESTS: Steady flows were compared using relative-root-mean-squared-error (RRMSE). For in vivo flows and pulsatile in vitro flows, net flow for corresponding timepoints were compared with the Pearson correlation test (P < 0.01). RESULTS: For steady flows, RRMSEs for Single Venc s ranged from 17.6% to 19.4%, and 9.6% to 16.5% for Dual Venc s. The net flow correlation coefficient for the aortic arch phantom was 0.975, and 0.995 for the stenotic phantom. Normal volunteer and patient comparisons yielded a correlation of 0.970 and 0.952, respectively. in vitro and in vivo pulsatile flow waveforms closely matched. DATA CONCLUSION: The Dual Venc offers improved noise properties and velocity resolution, while the spiral trajectory offers a scan efficient acquisition with short echo time yielding reduced flow artifacts. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Technical Efficacy Stage: 1 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;52:117-128.
BACKGROUND: Single Venc 4D flow MRI with Cartesian readout is hampered by poor velocity resolution and noise when imaging during diastole. Dual Venc acquisitions typically require the acquisition of two distinct datasets, which leads to longer scan times. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: To design and develop a 4D Spiral Dual Venc sequence. The sequence allows for separate systolic and diastolic Venc s as part of a single acquisition with a prescribed switch time. The implemented sequence was hypothesized to be comparable to Cartesian 4D flow, but with increased velocity resolution in the diastolic phase and with better scan efficiency and reduced noise. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. POPULATION: The studied populations were two phantoms-a straight pipe with a stenotic narrowing and a phantom of the aortic arch which included a calcific polymeric valve-under both steady and pulsatile flows, six healthy volunteers, and eight patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 1.5T, Dual Venc 4D flow with spiral readouts. ASSESSMENT: Data from the proposed sequence were compared with data from 4D Cartesian Dual Venc and Single Venc acquisitions. Noise was assessed from the acquired velocity data with the pump turned off and by varying Venc . Steady acquisitions were compared to the proximal slice of the lowest Single Venc acquisition. STATISTICAL TESTS: Steady flows were compared using relative-root-mean-squared-error (RRMSE). For in vivo flows and pulsatile in vitro flows, net flow for corresponding timepoints were compared with the Pearson correlation test (P < 0.01). RESULTS: For steady flows, RRMSEs for Single Venc s ranged from 17.6% to 19.4%, and 9.6% to 16.5% for Dual Venc s. The net flow correlation coefficient for the aortic arch phantom was 0.975, and 0.995 for the stenotic phantom. Normal volunteer and patient comparisons yielded a correlation of 0.970 and 0.952, respectively. in vitro and in vivo pulsatile flow waveforms closely matched. DATA CONCLUSION: The Dual Venc offers improved noise properties and velocity resolution, while the spiral trajectory offers a scan efficient acquisition with short echo time yielding reduced flow artifacts. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Technical Efficacy Stage: 1 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;52:117-128.
Authors: Elizabeth J Nett; Kevin M Johnson; Alex Frydrychowicz; Alejandro Munoz Del Rio; Eric Schrauben; Christopher J Francois; Oliver Wieben Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-01-26 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Fraser M Callaghan; Rebecca Kozor; Andrew G Sherrah; Michael Vallely; David Celermajer; Gemma A Figtree; Stuart M Grieve Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-06-30 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Mo Kadbi; Mj Negahdar; Jung Won Cha; Melanie Traughber; Peter Martin; Marcus F Stoddard; Amir A Amini Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-03-06 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Patricia A Pellikka; Maurice E Sarano; Rick A Nishimura; Joseph F Malouf; Kent R Bailey; Christopher G Scott; Marion E Barnes; A Jamil Tajik Journal: Circulation Date: 2005-06-13 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Miroslawa Gorecka; Malenka M Bissell; David M Higgins; Pankaj Garg; Sven Plein; John P Greenwood Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2022-08-22 Impact factor: 6.903
Authors: Monica Emendi; Francesco Sturla; Ram P Ghosh; Matteo Bianchi; Filippo Piatti; Francesca R Pluchinotta; Daniel Giese; Massimo Lombardi; Alberto Redaelli; Danny Bluestein Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2020-08-17 Impact factor: 3.934