4.2 Article

Scan-rescan reproducibility of segmental aortic wall shear stress as assessed by phase-specific segmentation with 4D flow MRI in healthy volunteers

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10334-018-0688-6

关键词

4D flow MRI; Wall shear stress; Aorta; Aortopathy

资金

  1. Netherlands Heart Foundation [2014T087] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The aim was to investigate scan-rescan reproducibility and observer variability of segmental aortic 3D systolic wall shear stress (WSS) by phase-specific segmentation with 4D flow MRI in healthy volunteers. Materials and methods: Ten healthy volunteers (age 26.5 +/- 2.6years) underwent aortic 4D flow MRI twice. Maximum 3D systolic WSS (WSSmax) and mean 3D systolic WSS (WSSmean) for five thoracic aortic segments over five systolic cardiac phases by phase-specific segmentations were calculated. Scan-rescan analysis and observer reproducibility analysis were performed. Results: San-rescan data showed overall good reproducibility for WSSmean (coefficient of variation, COV 10-15%) with moderate-to-strong intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC 0.63-0.89). The variability in WSSmax was high (COV 16-31%) with moderate-to-good ICC (0.55-0.79) for different aortic segments. Intra- and interobserver reproducibility was good-to-excellent for regional aortic WSSmax (ICC >= 0.78; COV <= 17%) and strong-to-excellent for WSSmean (ICC >= 0.86; COV <= 11%). In general, ascending aortic segments showed more WSSmax/WSSmean variability compared to aortic arch or descending aortic segments for scan-rescan, intraobserver and interobserver comparison. Conclusions: Scan-rescan reproducibility was good for WSSmean and moderate for WSSmax for all thoracic aortic segments over multiple systolic phases in healthy volunteers. Intra/interobserver reproducibility for segmental WSS assessment was good-to-excellent. Variability of WSSmax is higher and should be taken into account in case of individual follow-up or in comparative rest-stress studies to avoid misinterpretation.

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

4.2
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