TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of fast acquisition strategies in whole-heart four-dimensional flow cardiac MR
T2 - Two-center, 1.5 Tesla, phantom and in vivo validation study
AU - Garg, Pankaj
AU - Westenberg, Jos J.M.
AU - van den Boogaard, Pieter J.
AU - Swoboda, Peter P.
AU - Aziz, Rahoz
AU - Foley, James R.J.
AU - Fent, Graham J.
AU - Tyl, F. G.J.
AU - Coratella, L.
AU - Elbaz, Mohammed
AU - van der Geest, R. J.
AU - Higgins, David M.
AU - Greenwood, John P.
AU - Plein, Sven
N1 - Funding Information:
Contract grant sponsor: British Heart Foundation; contract grant number: FS/10/62/28409; Contract grant sponsor: Dutch ZonMw; contract grant number: 104003001. We thank Gavin Bainbridge, Caroline Richmond, Margaret Saysell, and Petra Bijsterveld for their invaluable assistance in recruiting and collecting data for this study. S.P. was funded by the British Heart Foundation and J.W. was funded by Dutch ZonMw. All authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
PY - 2018/1
Y1 - 2018/1
N2 - Purpose: To validate three widely-used acceleration methods in four-dimensional (4D) flow cardiac MR; segmented 4D-spoiled-gradient-echo (4D-SPGR), 4D-echo-planar-imaging (4D-EPI), and 4D-k-t Broad-use Linear Acquisition Speed-up Technique (4D-k-t BLAST). Materials and Methods: Acceleration methods were investigated in static/pulsatile phantoms and 25 volunteers on 1.5 Tesla MR systems. In phantoms, flow was quantified by 2D phase-contrast (PC), the three 4D flow methods and the time-beaker flow measurements. The later was used as the reference method. Peak velocity and flow assessment was done by means of all sequences. For peak velocity assessment 2D PC was used as the reference method. For flow assessment, consistency between mitral inflow and aortic outflow was investigated for all pulse-sequences. Visual grading of image quality/artifacts was performed on a four-point-scale (0 = no artifacts; 3 = nonevaluable). Results: For the pulsatile phantom experiments, the mean error for 2D PC = 1.0 ± 1.1%, 4D-SPGR = 4.9 ± 1.3%, 4D-EPI = 7.6 ± 1.3% and 4D-k-t BLAST = 4.4 ± 1.9%. In vivo, acquisition time was shortest for 4D-EPI (4D-EPI = 8 ± 2 min versus 4D-SPGR = 9 ± 3 min, P < 0.05 and 4D-k-t BLAST = 9 ± 3 min, P = 0.29). 4D-EPI and 4D-k-t BLAST had minimal artifacts, while for 4D-SPGR, 40% of aortic valve/mitral valve (AV/MV) assessments scored 3 (nonevaluable). Peak velocity assessment using 4D-EPI demonstrated best correlation to 2D PC (AV:r = 0.78, P < 0.001; MV:r = 0.71, P < 0.001). Coefficient of variability (CV) for net forward flow (NFF) volume was least for 4D-EPI (7%) (2D PC:11%, 4D-SPGR: 29%, 4D-k-t BLAST: 30%, respectively). Conclusion: In phantom, all 4D flow techniques demonstrated mean error of less than 8%. 4D-EPI demonstrated the least susceptibility to artifacts, good image quality, modest agreement with the current reference standard for peak intra-cardiac velocities and the highest consistency of intra-cardiac flow quantifications. Level of Evidence: 1. Technical Efficacy: Stage 2. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:272–281.
AB - Purpose: To validate three widely-used acceleration methods in four-dimensional (4D) flow cardiac MR; segmented 4D-spoiled-gradient-echo (4D-SPGR), 4D-echo-planar-imaging (4D-EPI), and 4D-k-t Broad-use Linear Acquisition Speed-up Technique (4D-k-t BLAST). Materials and Methods: Acceleration methods were investigated in static/pulsatile phantoms and 25 volunteers on 1.5 Tesla MR systems. In phantoms, flow was quantified by 2D phase-contrast (PC), the three 4D flow methods and the time-beaker flow measurements. The later was used as the reference method. Peak velocity and flow assessment was done by means of all sequences. For peak velocity assessment 2D PC was used as the reference method. For flow assessment, consistency between mitral inflow and aortic outflow was investigated for all pulse-sequences. Visual grading of image quality/artifacts was performed on a four-point-scale (0 = no artifacts; 3 = nonevaluable). Results: For the pulsatile phantom experiments, the mean error for 2D PC = 1.0 ± 1.1%, 4D-SPGR = 4.9 ± 1.3%, 4D-EPI = 7.6 ± 1.3% and 4D-k-t BLAST = 4.4 ± 1.9%. In vivo, acquisition time was shortest for 4D-EPI (4D-EPI = 8 ± 2 min versus 4D-SPGR = 9 ± 3 min, P < 0.05 and 4D-k-t BLAST = 9 ± 3 min, P = 0.29). 4D-EPI and 4D-k-t BLAST had minimal artifacts, while for 4D-SPGR, 40% of aortic valve/mitral valve (AV/MV) assessments scored 3 (nonevaluable). Peak velocity assessment using 4D-EPI demonstrated best correlation to 2D PC (AV:r = 0.78, P < 0.001; MV:r = 0.71, P < 0.001). Coefficient of variability (CV) for net forward flow (NFF) volume was least for 4D-EPI (7%) (2D PC:11%, 4D-SPGR: 29%, 4D-k-t BLAST: 30%, respectively). Conclusion: In phantom, all 4D flow techniques demonstrated mean error of less than 8%. 4D-EPI demonstrated the least susceptibility to artifacts, good image quality, modest agreement with the current reference standard for peak intra-cardiac velocities and the highest consistency of intra-cardiac flow quantifications. Level of Evidence: 1. Technical Efficacy: Stage 2. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:272–281.
KW - 4D flow cardiac MR
KW - MR flow imaging
KW - flow quantification
KW - phase-contrast magnetic resonance imaging
KW - validation
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85018765477&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85018765477&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/jmri.25746
DO - 10.1002/jmri.25746
M3 - Article
C2 - 28470915
AN - SCOPUS:85018765477
SN - 1053-1807
VL - 47
SP - 272
EP - 281
JO - Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
JF - Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
IS - 1
ER -