Comparison of two accelerated 4D-flow sequences for aortic flow quantification.

Ebel S; Dufke J; Köhler B; Preim B; Rosemeier S; Jung B; Dähnert I; Lurz P; Borger M; Grothoff M; Gutberlet M

doi:10.1038/s41598-019-45196-x

Back

Journal article

Comparison of two accelerated 4D-flow sequences for aortic flow quantification.

Ebel S Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Leipzig - Heart Centre, Leipzig, Germany. sebastian.ebel@icloud.com.
Dufke J Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Leipzig - Heart Centre, Leipzig, Germany.
Köhler B Department of Simulation and Graphics, University of Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany.
Preim B Department of Simulation and Graphics, University of Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany.
Rosemeier S Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Leipzig - Heart Centre, Leipzig, Germany.
Jung B Department of Diagnostic, Interventional and Paediatric Radiology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Dähnert I Department of Paediatric Cardiology, University of Leipzig - Heart Centre, Leipzig, Germany.
Lurz P Department of Cardiology, University of Leipzig - Heart Centre, Leipzig, Germany.
Borger M Department of Cardiac Surgery, University of Leipzig - Heart Centre, Leipzig, Germany.
Grothoff M Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Leipzig - Heart Centre, Leipzig, Germany.
Gutberlet M Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Leipzig - Heart Centre, Leipzig, Germany.

2019-06-16

Published in:

Scientific reports. - 2019

Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted

English To compare two broadly used 4D-flow- with a 2D-flow-sequence in healthy volunteers, regarding absolute flow parameters, image quality (IQ), and eddy current correction (ECC). Forty volunteers (42 ± 11.8 years, 22 females) were examined with a 3T scanner. Thoracic aortic flow was assessed using a 3D-T2w-SPACE-STIR-sequence for morphology and two accelerated 4D-flow sequences for comparison, one with k-t undersampling and one with standard GRAPPA parallel-imaging. 2D-flow was used as reference standard. The custom-made software tool Bloodline enabled flow measurements for all analyses at the same location. Quantitative flow analyses were performed with and without ECC. One reader assessed pathline IQ (IQ-PATH) and occurrence of motion artefacts (IQ-ART) on a 3-point grading scale, the higher the better. k-t GRAPPA allowed a significant mean scan time reduction of 46% (17:56 ± 5:26 min vs. 10:40 ± 3:15 min) and provided significantly fewer motion artefacts than standard GRAPPA (IQ-ART 1.57 ± 0.55 vs. 0.84 ± 0.48; p < 0.001). Neither 4D-flow sequence significantly differed in flow volume nor peak velocity results with or without ECC. Nevertheless, the correlation between both 4D-flow sequences and 2D-flow was better with ECC; the k-t GRAPPA sequence performed best (R = 0.96 vs. 0.90). k-t GRAPPA 4D-flow was not inferior to a standard GRAPPA-sequence, showed fewer artefacts, comparable IQ and was almost two-fold faster.

Language