Elliott R Hurd1, Mengjiao Han2,3, Jason K Mendes4, J Rock Hadley4, Chris R Johnson1,2,3, Edward V R DiBella1,4, John N Oshinski5,6, Lucas H Timmins7,8. 1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Utah, 36 S. Wasatch Drive, Rm. 3100, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA. 2. School of Computing, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA. 3. Scientific Computing and Imaging Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84112, USA. 4. Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA. 5. Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA. 6. Wallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology and Emory University, Atlanta, GA, 30332, USA. 7. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Utah, 36 S. Wasatch Drive, Rm. 3100, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA. lucas.timmins@utah.edu. 8. Scientific Computing and Imaging Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84112, USA. lucas.timmins@utah.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the agreement of 4D flow cMRI-derived bulk flow features and fluid (blood) velocities in the carotid bifurcation using prospective and retrospective gating techniques. METHODS: Prospective and retrospective ECG-gated three-dimensional (3D) cine phase-contrast cardiac MRI with three-direction velocity encoding (i.e., 4D flow cMRI) data were acquired in ten carotid bifurcations from men (n = 3) and women (n = 2) that were cardiovascular disease-free. MRI sequence parameters were held constant across all scans except temporal resolution values differed. Velocity data were extracted from the fluid domain and evaluated across the entire volume or at defined anatomic planes (common, internal, external carotid arteries). Qualitative agreement between gating techniques was performed by visualizing flow streamlines and topographical images, and statistical comparisons between gating techniques were performed across the fluid volume and defined anatomic regions. RESULTS: Agreement in the kinematic data (e.g., bulk flow features and velocity data) were observed in the prospectively and retrospectively gated acquisitions. Voxel differences in time-averaged, peak systolic, and diastolic-averaged velocity magnitudes between gating techniques across all volunteers were 2.7%, 1.2%, and 6.4%, respectively. No significant differences in velocity magnitudes or components ([Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]) were observed. Importantly, retrospective acquisitions captured increased retrograde flow in the internal carotid artery (i.e., carotid sinus) compared to prospective acquisitions (10.4 ± 6.3% vs. 4.6 ± 5.3%; [Formula: see text] < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Prospective and retrospective ECG-gated 4D flow cMRI acquisitions provide comparable evaluations of fluid velocities, including velocity vector components, in the carotid bifurcation. However, the increased temporal coverage of retrospective acquisitions depicts increased retrograde flow patterns (i.e., disturbed flow) not captured by the prospective gating technique.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the agreement of 4D flow cMRI-derived bulk flow features and fluid (blood) velocities in the carotid bifurcation using prospective and retrospective gating techniques. METHODS: Prospective and retrospective ECG-gated three-dimensional (3D) cine phase-contrast cardiac MRI with three-direction velocity encoding (i.e., 4D flow cMRI) data were acquired in ten carotid bifurcations from men (n = 3) and women (n = 2) that were cardiovascular disease-free. MRI sequence parameters were held constant across all scans except temporal resolution values differed. Velocity data were extracted from the fluid domain and evaluated across the entire volume or at defined anatomic planes (common, internal, external carotid arteries). Qualitative agreement between gating techniques was performed by visualizing flow streamlines and topographical images, and statistical comparisons between gating techniques were performed across the fluid volume and defined anatomic regions. RESULTS: Agreement in the kinematic data (e.g., bulk flow features and velocity data) were observed in the prospectively and retrospectively gated acquisitions. Voxel differences in time-averaged, peak systolic, and diastolic-averaged velocity magnitudes between gating techniques across all volunteers were 2.7%, 1.2%, and 6.4%, respectively. No significant differences in velocity magnitudes or components ([Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]) were observed. Importantly, retrospective acquisitions captured increased retrograde flow in the internal carotid artery (i.e., carotid sinus) compared to prospective acquisitions (10.4 ± 6.3% vs. 4.6 ± 5.3%; [Formula: see text] < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Prospective and retrospective ECG-gated 4D flow cMRI acquisitions provide comparable evaluations of fluid velocities, including velocity vector components, in the carotid bifurcation. However, the increased temporal coverage of retrospective acquisitions depicts increased retrograde flow patterns (i.e., disturbed flow) not captured by the prospective gating technique.
Authors: Peter Fries; Alexander Massmann; Roland Seidel; Andreas Müller; Jonas Stroeder; Florian Custodis; Jan Reil; Günther Schneider; Arno Buecker Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Alex J Barker; Michael Markl; Jonas Bürk; Ramona Lorenz; Jelena Bock; Simon Bauer; Jeanette Schulz-Menger; Florian von Knobelsdorff-Brenkenhoff Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2012-06-22 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Michael J Beck; Dennis L Parker; Bradley D Bolster; Seong-Eun Kim; J Scott McNally; Gerald S Treiman; J Rock Hadley Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-02-10 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: David G Guzzardi; Alex J Barker; Pim van Ooij; S Chris Malaisrie; Jyothy J Puthumana; Darrell D Belke; Holly E M Mewhort; Daniyil A Svystonyuk; Sean Kang; Subodh Verma; Jeremy Collins; James Carr; Robert O Bonow; Michael Markl; James D Thomas; Patrick M McCarthy; Paul W M Fedak Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2015-08-25 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Mieke M P Driessen; Marjolijn A Schings; Gertjan Tj Sieswerda; Pieter A Doevendans; Erik H Hulzebos; Marco C Post; Repke J Snijder; Jos J M Westenberg; Arie P J van Dijk; Folkert J Meijboom; Tim Leiner Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2018-01-15 Impact factor: 5.364