Philip A Corrado1, Rafael Medero2, Kevin M Johnson3, Christopher J François4, Alejandro Roldán-Alzate5, Oliver Wieben3. 1. Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 2. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 3. Departments of Medical Physics and Radiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 5. Departments of Mechanical and Biomedical Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Radial sampling is one method to accelerate 4D flow MRI acquisition, making feasible dual-velocity encoding (Venc) assessment of slow flow in the left ventricle (LV). Here, two radial trajectories are compared in vitro for this application: 3D radial (phase-contrast vastly undersampled isotropic projection, PC-VIPR) versus stack of stars (phase-contrast stack of stars, PC-SOS), with benchtop particle imaging velocimetry (PIV) serving as a reference standard. METHODS: The study contained three steps: (1) Construction of an MRI- and PIV-compatible LV model from a healthy adult's CT images. (2) In vitro PIV using a pulsatile flow pump. (3) In vitro dual-Venc 4D flow MRI using PC-VIPR and PC-SOS (two repeat experiments). Each MR image set was retrospectively undersampled to five effective scan durations and compared with the PIV reference. The root-mean-square velocity vector difference (RMSE) between MRI and PIV images was compared, along with kinetic energy (KE) and wall shear stress (WSS). RESULTS: RMSE increased as scan time decreased for both MR acquisitions. RMSE was 3% lower in PC-SOS images than PC-VIPR images in 30-min scans (3.8 vs. 3.9 cm/s) but 98% higher in 2.5-min scans (9.5 vs. 4.8 cm/s). PIV intrasession repeatability showed a RMSE of 4.4 cm/s, reflecting beat-to-beat flow variation, while MRI had intersession RMSEs of 3.8/3.5 cm/s for VIPR/SOS, respectively. Speed, KE, and WSS were overestimated voxel-wise in 30-min MRI scans relative to PIV by 0.4/0.3 cm/s, 0.2/0.1 μJ/mL, and 36/43 mPa, respectively, for VIPR/SOS. CONCLUSIONS: PIV is feasible for application-specific 4D flow MRI protocol optimization. PC-VIPR is better-suited to dual-Venc LV imaging with short scan times.
PURPOSE: Radial sampling is one method to accelerate 4D flow MRI acquisition, making feasible dual-velocity encoding (Venc) assessment of slow flow in the left ventricle (LV). Here, two radial trajectories are compared in vitro for this application: 3D radial (phase-contrast vastly undersampled isotropic projection, PC-VIPR) versus stack of stars (phase-contrast stack of stars, PC-SOS), with benchtop particle imaging velocimetry (PIV) serving as a reference standard. METHODS: The study contained three steps: (1) Construction of an MRI- and PIV-compatible LV model from a healthy adult's CT images. (2) In vitro PIV using a pulsatile flow pump. (3) In vitro dual-Venc 4D flow MRI using PC-VIPR and PC-SOS (two repeat experiments). Each MR image set was retrospectively undersampled to five effective scan durations and compared with the PIV reference. The root-mean-square velocity vector difference (RMSE) between MRI and PIV images was compared, along with kinetic energy (KE) and wall shear stress (WSS). RESULTS: RMSE increased as scan time decreased for both MR acquisitions. RMSE was 3% lower in PC-SOS images than PC-VIPR images in 30-min scans (3.8 vs. 3.9 cm/s) but 98% higher in 2.5-min scans (9.5 vs. 4.8 cm/s). PIV intrasession repeatability showed a RMSE of 4.4 cm/s, reflecting beat-to-beat flow variation, while MRI had intersession RMSEs of 3.8/3.5 cm/s for VIPR/SOS, respectively. Speed, KE, and WSS were overestimated voxel-wise in 30-min MRI scans relative to PIV by 0.4/0.3 cm/s, 0.2/0.1 μJ/mL, and 36/43 mPa, respectively, for VIPR/SOS. CONCLUSIONS: PIV is feasible for application-specific 4D flow MRI protocol optimization. PC-VIPR is better-suited to dual-Venc LV imaging with short scan times.
Authors: A V Barger; D C Peters; W F Block; K K Vigen; F R Korosec; T M Grist; C A Mistretta Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Andrew V Barger; Walter F Block; Yuriy Toropov; Thomas M Grist; Charles A Mistretta Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Johannes Töger; Sebastian Bidhult; Johan Revstedt; Marcus Carlsson; Håkan Arheden; Einar Heiberg Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2015-05-02 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: S S Khalafvand; J D Voorneveld; A Muralidharan; F J H Gijsen; J G Bosch; T van Walsum; A Haak; N de Jong; S Kenjeres Journal: J Biomech Date: 2018-04-26 Impact factor: 2.712
Authors: Philip A Corrado; Gregory P Barton; Christopher J Francois; Oliver Wieben; Kara N Goss Journal: Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol Date: 2021-04-16 Impact factor: 5.125