4.7 Article

Use of Multi-Velocity Encoding 4D Flow MRI to Improve Quantification of Flow Patterns in the Aorta

期刊

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
卷 43, 期 2, 页码 352-363

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.24991

关键词

-

资金

  1. Sydney Medical School Foundation
  2. Parker Hughes Bequest, University of Sydney, Australia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To show that the use of a multi-velocity encoding (VENC) 4D-flow approach offers significant improvements in the characterization of complex flow in the aorta. Four-dimensional flow magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (4D-flow) can be used to measure complex flow patterns and dynamics in the heart and major vessels. The quality of the information derived from these measures is dependent on the accuracy of the vector field, which is limited by the vector-to-noise ratio. Materials and Methods: A 4D-flow protocol involving three different VENC values of 150, 60, and 20 cm/s was performed on six control subjects and nine patients with type-B chronic aortic dissection at 3T MRI. Data were processed using a single VENC value (150 cm/s) or using a fused dataset that selected the lowest appropriate VENC for each voxel. Performance was analyzed by measuring spatial vector angular correlation, magnitude correlation, temporal vector conservation, and real-world streamline tracing performance. Results: The multi-VENC approach provided a 31% improvement in spatial and 53% improvement in temporal precision of velocity vector measurements during the mid-late diastolic period, where 99% of the flow vectors in the normal aorta are below 20 cm/s. In low-flow conditions this resulted in practical improvements of greater than 50% in pathline tracking and streamline tracing quantified by streamline curvature measurements. Conclusion: A multi-VENC 4D-flow approach provides accurate vector data across normal physiological velocities observed in the aorta, dramatically improving outputs such as pathline tracking, streamline estimation, and further advanced analyses.

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