Johannes Töger1,2, Matthew J Zahr3,4, Nicolas Aristokleous2, Karin Markenroth Bloch5, Marcus Carlsson2, Per-Olof Persson3,6. 1. Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Diagnostic Radiology, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden. 2. Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Clinical Physiology, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden. 3. Mathematics Group, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA. 4. Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN. 5. Lund University Bioimaging Center, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. 6. Department of Mathematics, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Three-dimensional, time-resolved blood flow measurement (4D-flow) is a powerful research and clinical tool, but improved resolution and scan times are needed. Therefore, this study aims to (1) present a postprocessing framework for optimization-driven simulation-based flow imaging, called 4D-flow High-resolution Imaging with a priori Knowledge Incorporating the Navier-Stokes equations and the discontinuous Galerkin method (4D-flow HIKING), (2) investigate the framework in synthetic tests, (3) perform phantom validation using laser particle imaging velocimetry, and (4) demonstrate the use of the framework in vivo. METHODS: An optimizing computational fluid dynamics solver including adjoint-based optimization was developed to fit computational fluid dynamics solutions to 4D-flow data. Synthetic tests were performed in 2D, and phantom validation was performed with pulsatile flow. Reference velocity data were acquired using particle imaging velocimetry, and 4D-flow data were acquired at 1.5 T. In vivo testing was performed on intracranial arteries in a healthy volunteer at 7 T, with 2D flow as the reference. RESULTS: Synthetic tests showed low error (0.4%-0.7%). Phantom validation showed improved agreement with laser particle imaging velocimetry compared with input 4D-flow in the horizontal (mean -0.05 vs -1.11 cm/s, P < .001; SD 1.86 vs 4.26 cm/s, P < .001) and vertical directions (mean 0.05 vs -0.04 cm/s, P = .29; SD 1.36 vs 3.95 cm/s, P < .001). In vivo data show a reduction in flow rate error from 14% to 3.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Phantom and in vivo results from 4D-flow HIKING show promise for future applications with higher resolution, shorter scan times, and accurate quantification of physiological parameters.
PURPOSE: Three-dimensional, time-resolved blood flow measurement (4D-flow) is a powerful research and clinical tool, but improved resolution and scan times are needed. Therefore, this study aims to (1) present a postprocessing framework for optimization-driven simulation-based flow imaging, called 4D-flow High-resolution Imaging with a priori Knowledge Incorporating the Navier-Stokes equations and the discontinuous Galerkin method (4D-flow HIKING), (2) investigate the framework in synthetic tests, (3) perform phantom validation using laser particle imaging velocimetry, and (4) demonstrate the use of the framework in vivo. METHODS: An optimizing computational fluid dynamics solver including adjoint-based optimization was developed to fit computational fluid dynamics solutions to 4D-flow data. Synthetic tests were performed in 2D, and phantom validation was performed with pulsatile flow. Reference velocity data were acquired using particle imaging velocimetry, and 4D-flow data were acquired at 1.5 T. In vivo testing was performed on intracranial arteries in a healthy volunteer at 7 T, with 2D flow as the reference. RESULTS: Synthetic tests showed low error (0.4%-0.7%). Phantom validation showed improved agreement with laser particle imaging velocimetry compared with input 4D-flow in the horizontal (mean -0.05 vs -1.11 cm/s, P < .001; SD 1.86 vs 4.26 cm/s, P < .001) and vertical directions (mean 0.05 vs -0.04 cm/s, P = .29; SD 1.36 vs 3.95 cm/s, P < .001). In vivo data show a reduction in flow rate error from 14% to 3.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Phantom and in vivo results from 4D-flow HIKING show promise for future applications with higher resolution, shorter scan times, and accurate quantification of physiological parameters.
Authors: L M Gottwald; J Töger; K Markenroth Bloch; E S Peper; B F Coolen; G J Strijkers; P van Ooij; A J Nederveen Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-06-25 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Jiacheng Zhang; Sean M Rothenberger; Melissa C Brindise; Michael B Scott; Haben Berhane; Justin J Baraboo; Michael Markl; Vitaliy L Rayz; Pavlos P Vlachos Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2021-11-30 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Jiacheng Zhang; Melissa C Brindise; Sean M Rothenberger; Michael Markl; Vitaliy L Rayz; Pavlos P Vlachos Journal: J R Soc Interface Date: 2022-01-19 Impact factor: 4.293
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: Suprosanna Shit; Judith Zimmermann; Ivan Ezhov; Johannes C Paetzold; Augusto F Sanches; Carolin Pirkl; Bjoern H Menze Journal: Front Artif Intell Date: 2022-08-12
Authors: Julia Geiger; Fraser M Callaghan; Barbara E U Burkhardt; Emanuela R Valsangiacomo Buechel; Christian J Kellenberger Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2020-12-11