BACKGROUND: Four-dimensional (D) flow magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is limited by time-consuming and nonstandardized data analysis. We aimed to test the efficiency and interobserver reproducibility of a dedicated 4D flow MRI analysis workflow. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty retrospectively identified patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV, age=47.8±11.8 y, 9 male) and 30 healthy controls (age=48.8±12.5 y, 21 male) underwent Aortic 4D flow MRI using 1.5 and 3 T MRI systems. Two independent readers performed 4D flow analysis on a dedicated workstation including preprocessing, aorta segmentation, and placement of four 2D planes throughout the aorta for quantification of net flow, peak velocity, and regurgitant fraction. 3D flow visualization using streamlines was used to grade aortic valve outflow jets and extent of helical flow. RESULTS: 4D flow analysis workflow time for both observers: 5.0±1.4 minutes per case (range=3 to 10 min). Valve outflow jets and flow derangement was visible in all 30 BAV patients (both observers). Net flow, peak velocity, and regurgitant fraction was significantly elevated in BAV patients compared with controls except for regurgitant fraction in plane 4 (91.1±29.7 vs. 62.6±19.6 mL/s, 37.1% difference; 121.7±49.7 vs. 90.9±26.4 cm/s, 28.9% difference; 9.3±10.1% vs. 2.0±3.4%, 128.0% difference, respectively; P<0.001). Excellent intraclass correlation coefficient agreement for net flow: 0.979, peak velocity: 0.931, and regurgitant fraction: 0.928. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates the potential of an efficient data analysis workflow to perform standardized 4D flow MRI processing in under 10 minutes and with good-to-excellent reproducibility for flow and velocity quantification in the thoracic aorta.
BACKGROUND: Four-dimensional (D) flow magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is limited by time-consuming and nonstandardized data analysis. We aimed to test the efficiency and interobserver reproducibility of a dedicated 4D flow MRI analysis workflow. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty retrospectively identified patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV, age=47.8±11.8 y, 9 male) and 30 healthy controls (age=48.8±12.5 y, 21 male) underwent Aortic 4D flow MRI using 1.5 and 3 T MRI systems. Two independent readers performed 4D flow analysis on a dedicated workstation including preprocessing, aorta segmentation, and placement of four 2D planes throughout the aorta for quantification of net flow, peak velocity, and regurgitant fraction. 3D flow visualization using streamlines was used to grade aortic valve outflow jets and extent of helical flow. RESULTS: 4D flow analysis workflow time for both observers: 5.0±1.4 minutes per case (range=3 to 10 min). Valve outflow jets and flow derangement was visible in all 30 BAV patients (both observers). Net flow, peak velocity, and regurgitant fraction was significantly elevated in BAV patients compared with controls except for regurgitant fraction in plane 4 (91.1±29.7 vs. 62.6±19.6 mL/s, 37.1% difference; 121.7±49.7 vs. 90.9±26.4 cm/s, 28.9% difference; 9.3±10.1% vs. 2.0±3.4%, 128.0% difference, respectively; P<0.001). Excellent intraclass correlation coefficient agreement for net flow: 0.979, peak velocity: 0.931, and regurgitant fraction: 0.928. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates the potential of an efficient data analysis workflow to perform standardized 4D flow MRI processing in under 10 minutes and with good-to-excellent reproducibility for flow and velocity quantification in the thoracic aorta.
Authors: Alex Frydrychowicz; Aurélien F Stalder; Maximilian F Russe; Jelena Bock; Simon Bauer; Andreas Harloff; Alexander Berger; Mathias Langer; Jürgen Hennig; Michael Markl Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Julio Garcia; Alex J Barker; Pim van Ooij; Susanne Schnell; Jyothy Puthumana; Robert O Bonow; Jeremy D Collins; James C Carr; Michael Markl Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-09-23 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Susanne Schnell; Pegah Entezari; Riti J Mahadewia; S Chris Malaisrie; Patrick M McCarthy; Jeremy D Collins; James Carr; Michael Markl Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2016 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Daniel Giese; Kilian Weiss; Bettina Baeßler; Navid Madershahian; Yeong-Hoon Choi; David Maintz; Alexander C Bunck Journal: MAGMA Date: 2017-09-18 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Christopher J G Sigakis; Lorna P Browne; Tami Bang; Amber Khanna; Ryan Pruente; Daniel Vargas Journal: J Thorac Imaging Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 3.000
Authors: Andrew G Sherrah; Fraser M Callaghan; Rajesh Puranik; Richmond W Jeremy; Paul G Bannon; Michael P Vallely; Stuart M Grieve Journal: Aorta (Stamford) Date: 2017-06-01
Authors: Jochen von Spiczak; Gerard Crelier; Daniel Giese; Sebastian Kozerke; David Maintz; Alexander Christian Bunck Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-09-29 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: José Fernando Rodríguez-Palomares; Lydia Dux-Santoy; Andrea Guala; Raquel Kale; Giuliana Maldonado; Gisela Teixidó-Turà; Laura Galian; Marina Huguet; Filipa Valente; Laura Gutiérrez; Teresa González-Alujas; Kevin M Johnson; Oliver Wieben; David García-Dorado; Arturo Evangelista Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2018-04-26 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Jeesoo Lee; Nadia El Hangouche; Ashitha Pathrose; Gilles Soulat; Alex J Barker; James D Thomas; Michael Markl Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2022-03-16 Impact factor: 2.357