A multi-center inter-manufacturer study of the temporal stability of phase-contrast velocity mapping background offset errors

Abstract

BackgroundPhase-contrast velocity images often contain a background or baseline offset error, which adds an unknown offset to the measured velocities. For accurate flow measurements, this offset must be shown negligible or corrected. Some correction techniques depend on replicating the clinical flow acquisition using a uniform stationary phantom, in order to measure the baseline offset at the region of interest and subtract it from the clinical study. Such techniques assume that the background offset is stable over the time of a patient scan, or even longer if the phantom scans are acquired later, or derived from pre-stored background correction images. There is no published evidence regarding temporal stability of the background offset.MethodsThis study assessed the temporal stability of the background offset on 3 different manufacturers’ scanners over 8 weeks, using a retrospectively-gated phase-contrast cine acquisition with fixed parameters and at a fixed location, repeated 5 times in rapid succession each week. A significant offset was defined as 0.6 cm/s within 50 mm of isocenter, based upon an accuracy of 10% in a typical cardiac shunt measurement.ResultsOver the 5 repeated cine acquisitions, temporal drift in the baseline offset was insignificant on two machines (0.3 cm/s, 0.2 cm/s), and marginally insignificant on the third machine (0.5 cm/s) due to an apparent heating effect. Over a longer timescale of 8 weeks, insignificant drift (0.4 cm/s) occurred on one, with larger drifts (0.9 cm/s, 0.6 cm/s) on the other machines.ConclusionsDuring a typical patient study, background drift was insignificant. Extended high gradient power scanning with work requires care to avoid drift on some machines. Over the longer term of 8 weeks, significant drift is likely, preventing accurate correction by delayed phantom corrections or derivation from pre-stored background offset data.

Independent validation of four‐dimensional flow MR velocities and vortex ring volume using particle imaging velocimetry and planar laser‐Induced fluorescence

“…However, 4D PC‐MR has not yet reached broad clinical use, which in part may be due to lack of studies validating 4D PC‐MR against independent techniques. Furthermore, reliable validation strategies for 4D flow are vital for development of improved 4D flow sequences, e.g., to improve accuracy and precision, reduce long scan times and minimize phase background errors .…”

Influence of eddy current, Maxwell and gradient field corrections on 3D flow visualization of 3D CINE PC-MRI data

“…PC‐MRI relies on the measurement of changes in the signal phase due to flow or motion in the presence of known linear magnetic gradient fields. It is well know that phase offset errors due to gradient field distortions are caused by three major effects: eddy currents , concomitant gradients (Maxwell terms) , and gradient field distortions (non‐ideal gradient coil design) .…”

A method to correct background phase offset for phase‐contrast MRI in the presence of steady flow and spatial wrap‐around artifact

“…First, the performance of WRLS+ARTO for the simulation study was superior to that for the in vivo study. This discrepancy can be partially attributed to inherent noise in the stationary phantom reference (0.05%‐0.4% of velocity‐encoding noise SD within vessel contours after time‐averaging), slightly different BPO in the stationary phantom than in vivo due to thermal drift, or potentially nonideal BPO, which cannot be perfectly described by a second‐order polynomial for in vivo data. For simulation, in contrast, the reference was noiseless and the simulated BPO could be perfectly described by a second‐order polynomial.…”