4.7 Article

Real-Time Flow MRI of the Aorta at a Resolution of 40 msec

期刊

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
卷 40, 期 1, 页码 206-213

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.24328

关键词

real-time MRI; aorta; blood flow; stroke volume

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [FR 2148/1-1, LO 1773/1-1]
  2. DZHK (German Centre for Cardiovascular Research)
  3. BMBF (German Ministry of Education and Research)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To evaluate a novel real-time phase-contrast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technique for the assessment of through-plane flow in the ascending aorta. Materials and Methods: Real-time MRI was based on a radial fast low-angle shot (FLASH) sequence with about 30-fold undersampling and image reconstruction by regularized nonlinear inversion. Phase-contrast maps were obtained from two (interleaved or sequential) acquisitions with and without a bipolar velocity-encoding gradient. Blood flow in the ascending aorta was studied in 10 healthy volunteers at 3 T by both real-time MRI (15 sec during free breathing) and electrocardiogram (ECG)-synchronized cine MRI (with and without breath holding). Flow velocities and stroke volumes were evaluated using standard postprocessing software. Results: The total acquisition time for a pair of phase-contrast images was 40.0 msec (TR/TE = 2.86/1.93 msec, 10 degrees flip angle, 7 spokes per image) for a nominal in-plane resolution of 1.3 mm and a section thickness of 6 mm. Quantitative evaluations of spatially averaged flow velocities and stroke volumes were comparable for real-time and cine methods when real-time MRI data were averaged across heartbeats. For individual heartbeats real-time phase-contrast MRI resulted in higher peak velocities for values above 120 cm s(-1). Conclusion: Real-time phase-contrast MRI of blood flow in the human aorta yields functional parameters for individual heartbeats. When averaged across heartbeats real-time flow velocities and stroke volumes are comparable to values obtained by conventional cine MRI.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据