Volumetric velocity measurements in restricted geometries using spiral sampling: a phantom study

Validation of two accelerated 4D flow MRI sequences at 3 T: a phantom study

Background

Four-dimensional (4D) flow magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequences with advanced parallel imaging have the potential to reduce scan time with equivalent image quality and accuracy compared with standard two-dimensional (2D) flow MRI. We compared 4D flow to standard 2D flow sequences using a constant and pulsatile flow phantom at 3 T.

Methods

Two accelerated 4D flow sequences (GRAPPA2 and k-t-GRAPPA5) were evaluated regarding the concordance of flow volumes, flow velocities, and reproducibility as well as dependency on measuring plane and velocity encoding (V_enc). The calculated flow volumes and peak velocities of the phantom were used as reference standard. Flow analysis was performed using the custom-made software “Bloodline”.

Results

No significant differences in flow volume were found between the 2D, both 4D flow MRI sequences, and the pump reference (p = 0.994) or flow velocities (p = 0.998) in continuous and pulsatile flow. An excellent correlation (R = 0.99–1.0) with a reference standard and excellent reproducibility of measurements (R = 0.99) was achieved for all sequences. A V_enc overestimated by up to two times had no impact on flow measurements. However, misaligned measuring planes led to an increasing underestimation of flow volume and mean velocity in 2D flow accuracy, while both 4D flow measurements were not affected. Scan time was significantly shorter for k-t-GRAPPA5 (1:54 ± 0:01 min, mean ± standard deviation) compared to GRAPPA2 (3:56 ± 0:02 min) (p = 0.002).

Conclusions

Both 4D flow sequences demonstrated equal agreement with 2D flow measurements, without impact of V_enc overestimation and plane misalignment. The highly accelerated k-t-GRAPPA5 sequence yielded results similar to those of GRAPPA2.

4D flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance consensus statement

Pulsatile blood flow through the cavities of the heart and great vessels is time-varying and multidirectional. Access to all regions, phases and directions of cardiovascular flows has formerly been limited. Four-dimensional (4D) flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) has enabled more comprehensive access to such flows, with typical spatial resolution of 1.5×1.5×1.5 - 3×3×3 mm(3), typical temporal resolution of 30-40 ms, and acquisition times in the order of 5 to 25 min. This consensus paper is the work of physicists, physicians and biomedical engineers, active in the development and implementation of 4D Flow CMR, who have repeatedly met to share experience and ideas. The paper aims to assist understanding of acquisition and analysis methods, and their potential clinical applications with a focus on the heart and greater vessels. We describe that 4D Flow CMR can be clinically advantageous because placement of a single acquisition volume is straightforward and enables flow through any plane across it to be calculated retrospectively and with good accuracy. We also specify research and development goals that have yet to be satisfactorily achieved. Derived flow parameters, generally needing further development or validation for clinical use, include measurements of wall shear stress, pressure difference, turbulent kinetic energy, and intracardiac flow components. The dependence of measurement accuracy on acquisition parameters is considered, as are the uses of different visualization strategies for appropriate representation of time-varying multidirectional flow fields. Finally, we offer suggestions for more consistent, user-friendly implementation of 4D Flow CMR acquisition and data handling with a view to multicenter studies and more widespread adoption of the approach in routine clinical investigations.

4D spiral imaging of flows in stenotic phantoms and subjects with aortic stenosis

PURPOSE

The utility of four-dimensional (4D) spiral flow in imaging of stenotic flows in both phantoms and human subjects with aortic stenosis is investigated.

METHODS

The method performs 4D flow acquisitions through a stack of interleaved spiral k-space readouts. Relative to conventional 4D flow, which performs Cartesian readout, the method has reduced echo time. Thus, reduced flow artifacts are observed when imaging high-speed stenotic flows. Four-dimensional spiral flow also provides significant savings in scan times relative to conventional 4D flow.

RESULTS

In vitro experiments were performed under both steady and pulsatile flows in a phantom model of severe stenosis (one inch diameter at the inlet, with 87% area reduction at the throat of the stenosis) while imaging a 6-cm axial extent of the phantom, which included the Gaussian-shaped stenotic narrowing. In all cases, gradient strength and slew rate for standard clinical acquisitions, and identical field of view and resolution were used. For low steady flow rates, quantitative and qualitative results showed a similar level of accuracy between 4D spiral flow (echo time [TE] = 2 ms, scan time = 40 s) and conventional 4D flow (TE = 3.6 ms, scan time = 1:01 min). However, in the case of high steady flow rates, 4D spiral flow (TE = 1.57 ms, scan time = 38 s) showed better visualization and accuracy as compared to conventional 4D flow (TE = 3.2 ms, scan time = 51 s). At low pulsatile flow rates, a good agreement was observed between 4D spiral flow (TE = 2 ms, scan time = 10:26 min) and conventional 4D flow (TE = 3.6 ms, scan time = 14:20 min). However, in the case of high flow-rate pulsatile flows, 4D spiral flow (TE = 1.57 ms, scan time = 10:26 min) demonstrated better visualization as compared to conventional 4D flow (TE = 3.2 ms, scan time = 14:20 min). The feasibility of 4D spiral flow was also investigated in five normal volunteers and four subjects with mild-to-moderate aortic stenosis. The approach achieved TE = 1.68 ms and scan time = 3:44 min. The conventional sequence achieved TE = 2.9 ms and scan time = 5:23 min. In subjects with aortic stenosis, we also compared both MRI methods with Doppler ultrasound (US) in the measurement of peak velocity, time to peak systolic velocity, and eject time. Bland-Altman analysis revealed that, when comparing peak velocities, the discrepancy between Doppler US and 4D spiral flow was significantly less than the discrepancy between Doppler and 4D Cartesian flow (2.75 cm/s vs. 10.25 cm/s), whereas the two MR methods were comparable (-5.75 s vs. -6 s) for time to peak. However, for the estimation of eject time, relative to Doppler US, the discrepancy for 4D conventional flow was smaller than that of 4D spiral flow (-16.25 s vs. -20 s).

CONCLUSION

Relative to conventional 4D flow, 4D spiral flow achieves substantial reductions in both the TE and scan times; therefore, utility for it should be sought in a variety of in vivo and complex flow imaging applications.

Quantification of turbulence and velocity in stenotic flow using spiral three-dimensional phase-contrast MRI

Purpose

Evaluate spiral three‐dimensional (3D) phase contrast MRI for the assessment of turbulence and velocity in stenotic flow.

Methods

A‐stack‐of‐spirals 3D phase contrast MRI sequence was evaluated in vitro against a conventional Cartesian sequence. Measurements were made in a flow phantom with a 75% stenosis. Both spiral and Cartesian imaging were performed using different scan orientations and flow rates. Volume flow rate, maximum velocity and turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) were computed for both methods. Moreover, the estimated TKE was compared with computational fluid dynamics (CFD) data.

Results

There was good agreement between the turbulent kinetic energy from the spiral, Cartesian and CFD data. Flow rate and maximum velocity from the spiral data agreed well with Cartesian data. As expected, the short echo time of the spiral sequence resulted in less prominent displacement artifacts compared with the Cartesian sequence. However, both spiral and Cartesian flow rate estimates were sensitive to displacement when the flow was oblique to the encoding directions.

Conclusion

Spiral 3D phase contrast MRI appears favorable for the assessment of stenotic flow. The spiral sequence was more than three times faster and less sensitive to displacement artifacts when compared with a conventional Cartesian sequence. Magn Reson Med 75:1249–1255, 2016. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Retrospectively gated intracardiac 4D flow MRI using spiral trajectories

PURPOSE

To develop and evaluate retrospectively gated spiral readout four-dimensional (4D) flow MRI for intracardiac flow analysis.

METHODS

Retrospectively gated spiral 4D flow MRI was implemented on a 1.5-tesla scanner. The spiral sequence was compared against conventional Cartesian 4D flow (SENSE [sensitivity encoding] 2) in seven healthy volunteers and three patients (only spiral). In addition to comparing flow values, linear regression was used to assess internal consistency of aortic versus pulmonary net volume flows and left ventricular inflow versus outflow using quantitative pathlines analysis.

RESULTS

Total scan time with spiral 4D flow was 44% ± 6% of the Cartesian counterpart (13 ± 3 vs. 31 ± 7 min). Aortic versus pulmonary flow correlated strongly for the spiral sequence (P < 0.05, slope = 1.03, R(2) = 0.88, N = 10), whereas the linear relationship for the Cartesian sequence was not significant (P = 0.06, N = 7). Pathlines analysis indicated good data quality for the spiral (P < 0.05, slope = 1.02, R(2) = 0.90, N = 10) and Cartesian sequence (P < 0.05, slope = 1.10, R(2) = 0.93, N = 7). Spiral and Cartesian peak flow rate (P < 0.05, slope = 0.96, R(2) = 0.72, N = 14), peak velocity (P < 0.05, slope = 1.00, R(2) = 0.81, N = 14), and pathlines flow components (P < 0.05, slope = 1.04, R(2) = 0.87, N = 28) correlated well.

CONCLUSION

Retrospectively gated spiral 4D flow MRI permits more than two-fold reduction in scan time compared to conventional Cartesian 4D flow MRI, while maintaining similar data quality.