In-scan and scan–rescan assessment of LV in- and outflow volumes by 4D flow MRI versus 2D planimetry

Vivian P. Kamphuis*, Roel L.F. van der Palen, Patrick J.H. de Koning, Mohammed Elbaz, Rob J. van der Geest, Albert de Roos, Arno A.W. Roest, Jos J.M. Westenberg

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

16 Scopus citations

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the in-scan and scan–rescan consistency of left ventricular (LV) in- and outflow assessment from 1) 2D planimetry; 2) 4D flow magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with retrospective valve tracking, and 3) 4D flow MRI with particle tracing. Materials and Methods: Ten healthy volunteers (age 27 ± 3 years) underwent multislice cine short-axis planimetry and whole-heart 4D flow MRI on a 3T MRI scanner twice with repositioning between the scans. LV in- and outflow was compared from 1) 2D planimetry; 2) 4D flow MRI with retrospective valve tracking over the mitral valve (MV) and aortic valve (AV), and 3) 4D flow MRI with particle tracing through forward and backward integration of velocity data. Results: In-scan consistency between MV and AV flow volumes is excellent for both 4D flow MRI methods with r ≥ 0.95 (P ≤ 0.001). In-scan AV and MV flow by retrospective valve tracking shows good to excellent correlations versus AV and MV flow by particle tracing (r ≥ 0.81, P ≤ 0.004). Scan–rescan SV assessment by 2D planimetry shows excellent reproducibility (intraclass correlation [ICC] = 0.98, P < 0.001, coefficient of variation [CV] = 7%). Scan–rescan MV and AV flow volume assessment by retrospective valve tracking shows strong reproducibility (ICCs ≥ 0.89, P ≤ 0.05, CVs = 12%), as well as by forward and backward particle tracing (ICCs ≥ 0.90, P ≤ 0.001, CVs ≤ 11%). Multicomponent particle tracing shows good scan–rescan reproducibility (ICCs ≥ 0.81, P ≤ 0.007, CVs ≤ 16%). Conclusion: LV in- and outflow assessment by 2D planimetry and 4D flow MRI with retrospective valve tracking and particle tracing show good in-scan consistency and strong scan–rescan reproducibility, which indicates that both 4D flow MRI methods are reliable and can be used clinically. Level of Evidence: 2. Technical Efficacy Stage: 2. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:511–522.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)511-522
Number of pages12
JournalJournal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Volume47
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2018

Keywords

  • 2D planimetry
  • 4D flow MRI
  • inflow
  • outflow
  • stroke volume

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'In-scan and scan–rescan assessment of LV in- and outflow volumes by 4D flow MRI versus 2D planimetry'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Kamphuis, V. P., van der Palen, R. L. F., de Koning, P. J. H., Elbaz, M., van der Geest, R. J., de Roos, A., Roest, A. A. W., & Westenberg, J. J. M. (2018). In-scan and scan–rescan assessment of LV in- and outflow volumes by 4D flow MRI versus 2D planimetry. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 47(2), 511-522. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25792