Relative pressure estimation from 4D flow MRI using generalized Bernoulli equation in a phantom model of arterial stenosis

Observation of intracranial artery and venous sinus hemodynamics using compressed sensing-accelerated 4D flow MRI: performance at different acceleration factors

Objective

To investigate the feasibility and performance of 4D flow MRI accelerated by compressed sensing (CS) for the hemodynamic quantification of intracranial artery and venous sinus.

Materials and methods

Forty healthy volunteers were prospectively recruited, and 20 volunteers underwent 4D flow MRI of cerebral artery, and the remaining volunteers underwent 4D flow MRI of venous sinus. A series of 4D flow MRI was acquired with different acceleration factors (AFs), including sensitivity encoding (SENSE, AF = 4) and CS (AF = CS4, CS6, CS8, and CS10) at a 3.0 T MRI scanner. The hemodynamic parameters, including flow rate, mean velocity, peak velocity, max axial wall shear stress (WSS), average axial WSS, max circumferential WSS, average circumferential WSS, and 3D WSS, were calculated at the internal carotid artery (ICA), transverse sinus (TS), straight sinus (SS), and superior sagittal sinus (SSS).

Results

Compared to the SENSE4 scan, for the left ICA C2, mean velocity measured by CS8 and CS10 groups, and 3D WSS measured by CS6, CS8, and CS10 groups were underestimated; for the right ICA C2, mean velocity measured by CS10 group, and 3D WSS measured by CS8 and CS10 groups were underestimated; for the right ICA C4, mean velocity measured by CS10 group, and 3D WSS measured by CS8 and CS10 groups were underestimated; and for the right ICA C7, mean velocity and 3D WSS measured by CS8 and CS10 groups, and average axial WSS measured by CS8 group were also underestimated (all p < 0.05). For the left TS, max axial WSS and 3D WSS measured by CS10 group were significantly underestimated (p = 0.032 and 0.003). Similarly, for SS, mean velocity, peak velocity, average axial WSS measured by the CS8 and CS10 groups, max axial WSS measured by CS6, CS8, and CS10 groups, and 3D WSS measured by CS10 group were significantly underestimated compared to the SENSE4 scan (p = 0.000-0.021). The hemodynamic parameters measured by CS4 group had only minimal bias and great limits of agreement compared to conventional 4D flow (SENSE4) in the ICA and every venous sinus (the max/min upper limit to low limit of the 95% limits of agreement = 11.4/0.03 to 0.004/-5.7, 14.4/0.05 to -0.03/-9.0, 12.6/0.04 to -0.03/-9.4, 16.8/0.04 to 0.6/-14.1; the max/min bias = 5.0/-1.2, 3.5/-1.4, 4.5/-1.1, 6.6/-4.0 for CS4, CS6, CS8, and CS10, respectively).

Conclusion

CS4 strikes a good balance in 4D flow between flow quantifications and scan time, which could be recommended for routine clinical use.

Cardiac MR modelling of systolic and diastolic blood pressure

AIMS

Blood pressure (BP) is a crucial factor in cardiovascular health and can affect cardiac imaging assessments. However, standard outpatient cardiovascular MR (CMR) imaging procedures do not typically include BP measurements prior to image acquisition. This study proposes that brachial systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) can be modelled using patient characteristics and CMR data.

METHODS

In this multicentre study, 57 patients from the PREFER-CMR registry and 163 patients from other registries were used as the derivation cohort. All subjects had their brachial SBP and DBP measured using a sphygmomanometer. Multivariate linear regression analysis was applied to predict brachial BP. The model was subsequently validated in a cohort of 169 healthy individuals.

RESULTS

Age and left ventricular ejection fraction were associated with SBP. Aortic forward flow, body surface area and left ventricular mass index were associated with DBP. When applied to the validation cohort, the correlation coefficient between CMR-derived SBP and brachial SBP was (r=0.16, 95% CI 0.011 to 0.305, p=0.03), and CMR-derived DBP and brachial DBP was (r=0.27, 95% CI 0.122 to 0.403, p=0.0004). The area under the curve (AUC) for CMR-derived SBP to predict SBP>120 mmHg was 0.59, p=0.038. Moreover, CMR-derived DBP to predict DBP>80 mmHg had an AUC of 0.64, p=0.002.

CONCLUSION

CMR-derived SBP and DBP models can estimate brachial SBP and DBP. Such models may allow efficient prospective collection, as well as retrospective estimation of BP, which should be incorporated into assessments due to its critical effect on load-dependent parameters.

4Dflow-VP-Net: A deep convolutional neural network for noninvasive estimation of relative pressures in stenotic flows from 4D flow MRI

PURPOSE

To estimate relative transvalvular pressure gradient (TVPG) noninvasively from 4D flow MRI.

METHODS

A novel deep learning-based approach is proposed to estimate pressure gradient across stenosis from four-dimensional flow MRI (4D flow MRI) velocities. A deep neural network 4D flow Velocity-to-Presure Network (4Dflow-VP-Net) was trained to learn the spatiotemporal relationship between velocities and pressure in stenotic vessels. Training data were simulated by computational fluid dynamics (CFD) for different pulsatile flow conditions under an aortic flow waveform. The network was tested to predict pressure from CFD-simulated velocity data, in vitro 4D flow MRI data, and in vivo 4D flow MRI data of patients with both moderate and severe aortic stenosis. TVPG derived from 4Dflow-VP-Net was compared to catheter-based pressure measurements for available flow rates, in vitro and Doppler echocardiography-based pressure measurement, in vivo.

RESULTS

Relative pressures calculated by 4Dflow-VP-Net and in vitro pressure catheterization revealed strong correlation (r2  = 0.91). Correlations analysis of TVPG from reference CFD and 4Dflow-VP-Net for 450 simulated flow conditions showed strong correlation (r2  = 0.99). TVPG from in vitro MRI had a correlation coefficient of r2  = 0.98 with reference CFD. 4Dflow-VP-Net, applied to 4D flow MRI in 16 patients, showed comparable TVPG measurement with Doppler echocardiography (r2  = 0.85). Bland-Altman analysis of TVPG measurements showed mean bias and limits of agreement of -0.20 ± 2.07 mmHg and 0.19 ± 0.45 mmHg for CFD-simulated velocities and in vitro 4D flow velocities. In patients, overestimation of Doppler echocardiography relative to TVPG from 4Dflow-VP-Net (10.99 ± 6.77 mmHg) was observed.

CONCLUSION

The proposed approach can predict relative pressure in both in vitro and in vivo 4D flow MRI of aortic stenotic patients with high fidelity.