4.5 Article

Quantification of turbulence and velocity in stenotic flow using spiral three-dimensional phase-contrast MRI

Journal

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE
Volume 75, Issue 3, Pages 1249-1255

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mrm.25698

Keywords

phase contrast mri; 4d flow; turbulence mapping; spiral; stenosis

Funding

  1. European Research Council [310612]
  2. Swedish Research Council
  3. Swedish e-Science Research Centre
  4. European Research Council (ERC) [310612] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PurposeEvaluate spiral three-dimensional (3D) phase contrast MRI for the assessment of turbulence and velocity in stenotic flow. MethodsA-stack-of-spirals 3D phase contrast MRI sequence was evaluated in vitro against a conventional Cartesian sequence. Measurements were made in a flow phantom with a 75% stenosis. Both spiral and Cartesian imaging were performed using different scan orientations and flow rates. Volume flow rate, maximum velocity and turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) were computed for both methods. Moreover, the estimated TKE was compared with computational fluid dynamics (CFD) data. ResultsThere was good agreement between the turbulent kinetic energy from the spiral, Cartesian and CFD data. Flow rate and maximum velocity from the spiral data agreed well with Cartesian data. As expected, the short echo time of the spiral sequence resulted in less prominent displacement artifacts compared with the Cartesian sequence. However, both spiral and Cartesian flow rate estimates were sensitive to displacement when the flow was oblique to the encoding directions. ConclusionSpiral 3D phase contrast MRI appears favorable for the assessment of stenotic flow. The spiral sequence was more than three times faster and less sensitive to displacement artifacts when compared with a conventional Cartesian sequence. Magn Reson Med 75:1249-1255, 2016. (c) 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available