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

Lorenz, Ramona; Bock, Jelena; Snyder, Jeff; Korvink, Jan G.; Jung, Bernd; Markl, Michael

doi:10.1002/mrm.24885

Cited by 51 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While other studies have investigated background‐phase offsets in 4D‐flow MRI, this is the first study to provide a comprehensive analysis of the influence of different correction techniques on vascular flow‐volume measurements. Lorenz et al performed a streamline and pathline tracking analysis that showed improvement with second order, compared with linear background phase fitting in phantom experiments, but no discernable difference in in vivo tracking, agreeing with our results . Ebbers et al demonstrated that higher‐order fitting results in improved velocity correction in static tissue, as we have also shown .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Flow quantification dependency on background phase correction techniques in 4D‐flow MRI

Callaghan

Burkhardt

Geiger

et al. 2019

Magnetic Resonance in Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To analyze the dependence of flow volume measurements on 3D cine phase‐contrast MRI (4D‐flow MRI) background phase correction. Methods In 31 subjects scanned on a 1.5T MRI scanner, flow volume measurements at 4 vessels were made using phantom corrected 2D phase contrast and 4D flow with background phase correction performed by linear, second, third, and fourth‐order polynomial fitting to static tissue. Variations in the amount and distribution of static tissue were made to investigate the influence on flow volume measurements. Results Bland Altman comparison of 2D phase‐contrast and 4D‐flow measurements showed low bias (2.3%‐4.8%) and relatively large limits of agreement (13.5%‐17.6%). Approximately half of this was attributable to sequence and physiological differences between the 2 scan sequences, demonstrated by smaller limits of agreement (5.3%‐10.0%) when comparing 4D‐flow measurements with differing background phase corrections. Using only 20% of available static tissue points for polynomial fitting resulted in only 1% difference in flow volume measurements. Using asymmetrically distributed static tissue or including nonstatic tissue for polynomial fitting yielded highly variable differences in flow volume measurements, which became more variable with increased polynomial order. Completely asymmetric static tissue selection resulted in high deviations in flow volume measurements (mean > 7%, max = 345%). Conclusion Comparisons between 2D phase‐contrast and 4D‐flow volume measurements should consider influences from sequence and physiological differences. A subset of static tissue points may be used with low impact on flow measurements, but should avoid the inclusion of nonstatic tissue and avoid asymmetric distribution. Higher‐order polynomial fits are more susceptible to inaccurate static tissue selection.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Background phase correction of 4D‐flow data has been demonstrated to be important for obtaining accurate pathline and streamline traces for flow visualization . More recently, Busch et al used an image‐based assessment of 4D‐flow MRI background phase‐correction sensitivity to polynomial fit order and static tissue .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flow quantification dependency on background phase correction techniques in 4D‐flow MRI

Callaghan

Burkhardt

Geiger

et al. 2019

Magnetic Resonance in Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Gradient non‐linearities are caused by geometric limitations in the gradient coils, which result in unwanted higher order, nonlinear encoding gradients . Concomitant gradients are nonlinear, spatially dependent magnetic fields that are generated when a linear magnetic field gradient is activated . Gradient nonlinearities and concomitant gradients both cause phase errors but can be corrected for and eliminated during image reconstruction without user intervention .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Eddy currents are created from rapidly switching the velocity encoding gradient during acquisition. This switching causes a change in the magnetic flux at the gradient coils, leading to spatially varying phase errors on the image . The magnitude of these eddy currents are based on the flow velocity at the ROI, as regions with slow flow require stronger encoding gradients resulting in larger field distortions .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing test–retest reliability of phase contrast MRI for measuring cerebrospinal fluid and cerebral blood flow dynamics

Sakhare

Barisano

2019

Magnetic Resonance in Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Pathological states occur when cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and cerebral blood flow (CBF) dynamics become dysregulated in the brain. Phase‐contrast MRI (PC‐MRI) is a noninvasive imaging technique that enables quantitative measurements of CSF and CBF flow. While studies have validated PC‐MRI as an imaging technique for flow, few studies have evaluated its reliability for CSF and CBF flow parameters commonly associated with neurological disease. The purpose of this study was to evaluate test–retest reliability at the cerebral aqueduct (CA) and C2‐C3 area using PC‐MRI to assess the feasibility of investigating CSF and CBF flow dynamics. Methods This study was performed on 27 cognitively normal young adults (ages 20‐35 years). Flow data was acquired on a 3T Siemens Prisma using a 2D cine‐PC pulse sequence. Three consecutive flow measurements were acquired at the CA and C2‐C3 area. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and coefficient of variance (CV) were used to evaluate intrarater, inter‐rater, and test–retest reliability. Results Among the 26 flow parameters analyzed, 22 had excellent reliability (ICC > 0.80), including measurements of CSF stroke volume, flush peak, and fill peak, and 4 parameters had good reliability (ICC 0.60‐0.79). 16 flow parameters had a mean CV ≤ 10%, 7 had a CV ≤ 15%, and 3 had a CV ≤ 30%. All CSF and CBF flow measurements had excellent inter‐rater and intrarater reliability (ICC > 0.80). Conclusion This study shows that CSF and CBF flow can be reliably measured at the CA and C2‐C3 area using PC‐MRI, making it a promising tool for studying flow dynamics in the central nervous system.

show abstract

“…All data were corrected for Maxwell terms during reconstruction, and for eddy currents and velocity noise using a specialized in‐house tool (MATLAB, MathWorks, Natick, MA). In vitro, background phase was corrected by subtracting the image collected under identical conditions but with flow turned off . As shown in Fig.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Standardized Evaluation of Cerebral Arteriovenous Malformations Using Flow Distribution Network Graphs and Dual‐venc 4D Flow MRI

Aristova

Vali

Ansari

et al. 2019

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Cerebral arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) are pathological connections between arteries and veins. Dual‐venc 4D flow MRI, an extended 4D flow MRI method with improved velocity dynamic range, provides time‐resolved 3D cerebral hemodynamics. Purpose To optimize dual‐venc 4D flow imaging parameters for AVM; to assess the relationship between spatial resolution, acceleration, and flow quantification accuracy; and to introduce and apply the flow distribution network graph (FDNG) paradigm for storing and analyzing complex neurovascular 4D flow data. Study Type Retrospective cohort study. Subjects/Phantom Scans were performed in a specialized flow phantom: 26 healthy subjects (age 41 ± 17 years) and five AVM patients (age 27–68 years). Field Strength/Sequence Dual‐venc 4D flow with varying spatial resolution and acceleration factors were performed at 3T field strength. Assessment Quantification accuracy was assessed in vitro by direct comparison to measured flow. FDNGs were used to quantify and compare flow, peak velocity (PV), and pulsatility index (PI) between healthy controls with various Circle of Willis (CoW) anatomy and AVM patients. Statistical Tests In vitro measurements were compared to ground truth with Student's t‐test. In vivo groups were compared with Wilcoxon rank‐sum test and Kruskal–Wallis test. Results Flow was overestimated in all in vitro experiments, by an average 7.1 ± 1.4% for all measurement conditions. Error in flow measurement was significantly correlated with number of voxels across the channel (P = 3.11 × 10−28) but not with acceleration factor (P = 0.74). For the venous‐arterial PV and PI ratios, a significant difference was found between AVM nidal and extranidal circulation (P = 0.008 and 0.05, respectively), and between AVM nidal and healthy control circulation (P = 0.005 and 0.003, respectively). Data Conclusion Dual‐venc 4D flow MRI and standardized FDNG analysis might be feasible in clinical applications. Venous‐arterial ratios of PV and PI are proposed as network‐based biomarkers characterizing AVM nidal hemodynamics. Level of Evidence: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 1 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;50:1718–1730.

show abstract

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

Cited by 51 publications

References 23 publications

Flow quantification dependency on background phase correction techniques in 4D‐flow MRI

Flow quantification dependency on background phase correction techniques in 4D‐flow MRI

Assessing test–retest reliability of phase contrast MRI for measuring cerebrospinal fluid and cerebral blood flow dynamics

Standardized Evaluation of Cerebral Arteriovenous Malformations Using Flow Distribution Network Graphs and Dual‐venc 4D Flow MRI

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About