A phantom study comparing radial trajectories for accelerated cardiac 4D flow MRI against a particle imaging velocimetry reference

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 isotr...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Magnetic resonance in medicine 2021-07, Vol.86 (1), p.363-371
Main Authors: Corrado, Philip A., Medero, Rafael, Johnson, Kevin M., François, Christopher J., Roldán‐Alzate, Alejandro, Wieben, Oliver
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Blood Flow Velocity
Computed tomography
dual‐Venc
flow
Imaging, Three-Dimensional
Kinetic energy
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Medical imaging
non‐cartesian
Optimization
phantom
radial
Reproducibility of Results
Retrospective Studies
Rheology
Shear stress
validation
Velocimetry
Velocity
Ventricle
Wall shear stresses
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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.
ISSN:0740-3194
1522-2594
DOI:10.1002/mrm.28698