Validation of aortic valve 4D flow analysis and myocardial deformation by cardiovascular magnetic resonance in patients after the arterial switch operation

Wijk, W. H. S. van; Breur, Johannes M.P.J.; Westenberg, Jos J.M.; Driessen, Mieke M. P.; Meijboom, Folkert J.; Driesen, Bart W.; Baat, Esmée C de; Doevendans, Pieter A.; Leiner, Tim; Grotenhuis, Heynric B.

doi:10.1186/s12968-019-0527-6

Cited by 12 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nevertheless, implementations of 4DEPI in volunteers and patients with various cardiac diseases with up to moderate valve regurgitation have proven to be of clinical value. 12 , 13 , 25 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ethical considerations hindered an extensive clinical evaluation with repeated 4DEPI acquisitions in various orientations and a long 4DGRE acquisition in patients. Nevertheless, implementations of 4DEPI in volunteers and patients with various cardiac diseases with up to moderate valve regurgitation have proven to be of clinical value 12,13,25,28–34 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although not evident from our results comparing 4DEPI5 versus 4DEPI3, it is expected that using higher EPI factors would lead to higher inaccuracies due to more phase accumulation, more severe modulation of the point spread function, and more severe flow displacement. Various clinical studies have shown that EPI factor 5 can provide acceleration with acceptable scanning time in combination with acceptable accuracy, especially when the acquisition volume can be planned with readout and blip phase‐encoding gradient both perpendicular to the main flow direction 12,13,30–34 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Various clinical studies have shown that EPI factor 5 can provide acceleration with acceptable scanning time in combination with acceptable accuracy, especially when the acquisition volume can be planned with readout and blip phase-encoding gradient both perpendicular to the main flow direction. 12,13,[30][31][32][33][34] The receiver bandwidth was substantially different between the respective 4DEPI and 4DGRE acquisitions. In this study, acquisition parameters were kept identical between 4DGRE and 4DEPI, which resulted in bandwidth differences.…”

Section: Voxel-based Comparison At Peak LV Inflowmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Echo planar imaging–induced errors in intracardiac 4D flow MRI quantification

Westenberg

Assen

Boogaard

et al. 2021

Magnetic Resonance in Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To assess errors associated with EPI-accelerated intracardiac 4D flow MRI (4DEPI) with EPI factor 5, compared with non-EPI gradient echo (4DGRE).Methods: Three 3T MRI experiments were performed comparing 4DEPI to 4DGRE: steady flow through straight tubes, pulsatile flow in a left-ventricle phantom, and intracardiac flow in 10 healthy volunteers. For each experiment, 4DEPI was repeated with readout and blip phase-encoding gradient in different orientations, parallel or perpendicular to the flow direction. In vitro flow rates were compared with timed volumetric collection. In the left-ventricle phantom and in vivo, voxel-based speed and spatio-temporal median speed were compared between sequences, as well as mitral and aortic transvalvular net forward volume. Results:In steady-flow phantoms, the flow rate error was largest (12%) for high velocity (>2 m/s) with 4DEPI readout gradient parallel to the flow. Voxel-based speed and median speed in the left-ventricle phantom were ≤5.5% different between sequences. In vivo, mean net forward volume inconsistency was largest (6.4 ± 8.5%) for 4DEPI with nonblip phase-encoding gradient parallel to the main flow. The difference in median speed for 4DEPI versus 4DGRE was largest (9%) when the 4DEPI readout gradient was parallel to the flow.Conclusions: Velocity and flow rate are inaccurate for 4DEPI with EPI factor 5 when flow is parallel to the readout or blip phase-encoding gradient. However, mean differences in flow rate, voxel-based speed, and spatio-temporal median

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Voxel-based Comparison At Peak LV Inflowmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Echo planar imaging–induced errors in intracardiac 4D flow MRI quantification

Westenberg

Assen

Boogaard

et al. 2021

Magnetic Resonance in Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Four‐Dimensional Flow Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Assessment of Blood Flow in the Heart and Great Vessels: A Systematic Review

Doyle¹,

Orr²,

Greenwood³

et al. 2021

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Four‐dimensional (4D) flow magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) allows multidirectional quantification of blood flow in the heart and great vessels. Comparability of the technique to the current reference standards of flow assessment—two‐dimensional (2D) flow MRI and Doppler echocardiography—varies in the literature. Image acquisition parameters likely impact upon the accuracy and reproducibility of 4D flow MRI. We therefore sought to review the current literature on 4D flow MRI in the heart and great vessels, in comparison to 2D flow MRI, Doppler echocardiography, and invasive catheterization. Using a predefined search strategy and inclusion and exclusion criteria, the databases EMBASE and Medline were searched in January 2021 for peer‐reviewed research articles comparing cardiac 4D flow MRI to 2D flow MRI, Doppler echocardiography and/or invasive catheterization. The data from all relevant articles were assimilated and analyzed using Mann–Whitney U and chi χ2 test. Forty‐four manuscripts met the eligibility criteria and were included in the review. The review showed agreement of 4D flow MRI to the reference standard methods of flow assessment, particular in the measurement of peak velocity and stroke volume in 55% of manuscripts. The use of valve tracking significantly improves agreement between 4D flow MRI and the reference modalities (79% matching with the use of valve tracking vs. 50% without, P = 0.04). This review highlights that the impact of acquisition parameters on 4D flow MRI accuracy is multifactorial. It is therefore important that each center conducts its own quality assurance prior to using 4D flow MRI for clinical decision‐making. Level of Evidence 2 Technical Efficacy Stage 2

show abstract

4D flow MRI applications in congenital heart disease

Rizk

2020

Eur Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Validation of aortic valve 4D flow analysis and myocardial deformation by cardiovascular magnetic resonance in patients after the arterial switch operation

Cited by 12 publications

References 42 publications

Echo planar imaging–induced errors in intracardiac 4D flow MRI quantification

Echo planar imaging–induced errors in intracardiac 4D flow MRI quantification

Four‐Dimensional Flow Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Assessment of Blood Flow in the Heart and Great Vessels: A Systematic Review

4D flow MRI applications in congenital heart disease

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About