Repeatability and comparison of 2D and 4D flow MRI measurement of intracranial blood flow and pulsatility in healthy individuals and patients with cerebral small vessel disease

IntroductionWhile 2D phase-contrast MRI is often used to examine intracranial vessels in neurovascular disease contexts, the ability of 4D flow to assess many vessels at once makes it an attractive alternative. We aimed to assess the repeatability, reliability, and conformity of 2D and 4D flow across intracranial vessels. MethodsUsing correlation analyses and paired t-tests, test-retest repeatability, intra-rater reliability, and inter-method conformity for measurements of pulsatility index (PI) and mean flow were assessed in the arteries and veins of 11 healthy volunteers. Inter-method conformity was also assessed in 10 patients with small vessel disease. ResultsRepeatability for PI measurements was mostly classed as good using both 2D (median ICC = 0.765) and 4D (0.772) methods, and for mean flow was mostly moderate across both (2D: 0.711, 4D: 0.571). 4D reliability was good for PI (0.877-0.906) and moderate for mean flow (0.459-0.723). Arterial PI measurements were generally higher using the 2D method, while mean flow was mostly higher using 4D flow. DiscussionThese results imply that PI measurement using 4D flow is repeatable and reliable across intracranial arteries and veins, but care should be paid to absolute flow measurements as they are susceptible to variation depending on slice placement, resolution, and lumen segmentation practices.

Automated summary

This study aimed to assess the repeatability, reliability, and conformity of 2D and 4D flow in intracranial vessels. The results showed that PI measurement using 4D flow is repeatable and reliable across intracranial arteries and veins, but absolute flow measurements may be influenced by factors such as slice placement, resolution, and lumen segmentation.