Ashitha Pathrose1, Liliana Ma1,2, Haben Berhane3, Michael B Scott1,2, Kelvin Chow1,4, Christoph Forman5, Ning Jin4, Ali Serhal1, Ryan Avery1, James Carr1,2, Michael Markl1,2. 1. Department of Radiology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 2. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA. 3. Department of Medical Imaging, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 4. Cardiovascular MR R&D, Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA. 5. Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To systematically assess the feasibility and performance of a highly accelerated compressed sensing (CS) 4D flow MRI framework at three different acceleration factors (R) for the quantification of aortic flow dynamics and wall shear stress (WSS) in patients with aortic disease. METHODS: Twenty patients with aortic disease (58 ± 15 y old; 19 M) underwent four 4D flow scans: one conventional (GRAPPA, R = 2) and three CS 4D flows with R = 5.7, 7.7, and 10.2. All scans were acquired with otherwise equivalent imaging parameters on a 1.5T scanner. Peak-systolic velocity (Vmax ), peak flow (Qmax ), and net flow (Qnet ) were quantified at the ascending aorta (AAo), arch, and descending aorta (DAo). WSS was calculated at six regions within the AAo and arch. RESULTS: Mean scan times for the conventional and CS 4D flows with R = 5.7, 7.7, and 10.2 were 9:58 ± 2:58 min, 3:40 ± 1:19 min, 2:50 ± 0:56 min, and 2:05 ± 0:42 min, respectively. Vmax , Qmax , and Qnet were significantly underestimated by all CS protocols (underestimation ≤ -7%, -9%, and -10% by CS, R = 5.7, 7.7, and 10.2, respectively). WSS measurements showed the highest underestimation by all CS protocols (underestimation ≤ -9%, -12%, and -14% by CS, R = 5.7, 7.7, and 10.2). CONCLUSIONS: Highly accelerated aortic CS 4D flow at R = 5.7, 7.7, and 10.2 showed moderate agreement with the conventional 4D flow, despite systematically underestimating various hemodynamic parameters. The shortened scan time may enable the clinical translation of CS 4D flow, although potential hemodynamic underestimation should be considered when interpreting the results.
PURPOSE: To systematically assess the feasibility and performance of a highly accelerated compressed sensing (CS) 4D flow MRI framework at three different acceleration factors (R) for the quantification of aortic flow dynamics and wall shear stress (WSS) in patients with aortic disease. METHODS: Twenty patients with aortic disease (58 ± 15 y old; 19 M) underwent four 4D flow scans: one conventional (GRAPPA, R = 2) and three CS 4D flows with R = 5.7, 7.7, and 10.2. All scans were acquired with otherwise equivalent imaging parameters on a 1.5T scanner. Peak-systolic velocity (Vmax ), peak flow (Qmax ), and net flow (Qnet ) were quantified at the ascending aorta (AAo), arch, and descending aorta (DAo). WSS was calculated at six regions within the AAo and arch. RESULTS: Mean scan times for the conventional and CS 4D flows with R = 5.7, 7.7, and 10.2 were 9:58 ± 2:58 min, 3:40 ± 1:19 min, 2:50 ± 0:56 min, and 2:05 ± 0:42 min, respectively. Vmax , Qmax , and Qnet were significantly underestimated by all CS protocols (underestimation ≤ -7%, -9%, and -10% by CS, R = 5.7, 7.7, and 10.2, respectively). WSS measurements showed the highest underestimation by all CS protocols (underestimation ≤ -9%, -12%, and -14% by CS, R = 5.7, 7.7, and 10.2). CONCLUSIONS: Highly accelerated aortic CS 4D flow at R = 5.7, 7.7, and 10.2 showed moderate agreement with the conventional 4D flow, despite systematically underestimating various hemodynamic parameters. The shortened scan time may enable the clinical translation of CS 4D flow, although potential hemodynamic underestimation should be considered when interpreting the results.
Authors: Christian Binter; Alexander Gotschy; Simon H Sündermann; Michelle Frank; Felix C Tanner; Thomas F Lüscher; Robert Manka; Sebastian Kozerke Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Haben Berhane; Michael Scott; Mohammed Elbaz; Kelly Jarvis; Patrick McCarthy; James Carr; Chris Malaisrie; Ryan Avery; Alex J Barker; Joshua D Robinson; Cynthia K Rigsby; Michael Markl Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2020-03-13 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Adam Rich; Lee C Potter; Ning Jin; Yingmin Liu; Orlando P Simonetti; Rizwan Ahmad Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-09-28 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: Claire M Lawley; Kathryn M Broadhouse; Fraser M Callaghan; David S Winlaw; Gemma A Figtree; Stuart M Grieve Journal: Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann Date: 2017-02-10
Authors: Emilie Bollache; Paul W M Fedak; Pim van Ooij; Ozair Rahman; S Chris Malaisrie; Patrick M McCarthy; James C Carr; Alex Powell; Jeremy D Collins; Michael Markl; Alex J Barker Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2017-11-16 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Israel Valverde; Sarah Nordmeyer; Sergio Uribe; Gerald Greil; Felix Berger; Titus Kuehne; Philipp Beerbaum Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2012-04-27 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Stanley Chu; Ozden Kilinc; Maurice Pradella; Elizabeth Weiss; Justin Baraboo; Anthony Maroun; Kelly Jarvis; Christopher K Mehta; S Chris Malaisrie; Andrew W Hoel; James C Carr; Michael Markl; Bradley D Allen Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-06-09
Authors: Jean-François Deux; Lindsey A Crowe; Léon Genecand; Anne-Lise Hachulla; Carl G Glessgen; Stéphane Noble; Maurice Beghetti; Jin Ning; Daniel Giese; Frédéric Lador; Jean-Paul Vallée Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-09-05 Impact factor: 4.964