Automatic correction of background phase offset in 4D-flow of great vessels and of the heart in MRI using a third-order surface model
- 94 Downloads
To evaluate an automatic correction method for velocity offset errors in cardiac 4D-flow acquisitions.
Materials and methods
Velocity offset correction was done in a plane-by-plane scheme and compared to a volumetric approach. Stationary regions were automatically detected. In vitro experiments were conducted in a phantom using two orientations and two encoding velocities (Venc). First- to third-order models were fit to the time-averaged images of the three velocity components. In vivo experiments included realistic ROIs in a volunteer superimposed to a phantom. In 15 volunteers, blood flow volume of the proximal and distal descending aorta, of the pulmonary artery (Qp) and the ascending aorta (Qs) was compared.
Offset errors were reduced after correction with a third-order model, yielding residual phantom velocities below 0.6 cm/s and 0.4% of Venc. The plane-by-plane correction method was more effective than the volumetric approach. Mean velocities through superimposed ROIs of a volunteer vs phantom were highly correlated (r2 = 0.96). The significant difference between proximal and distal descending aortic flows was decreased after correction from 8.1 to − 1.4 ml (p < 0.001) and Qp/Qs reduced from 1.08 ± 0.09 to 1.01 ± 0.05.
An automatic third-order model corrected velocity offset errors in 4D-flow acquisitions, achieving acceptable levels for clinical applications.
KeywordsPhase-contrast MRI Eddy currents Velocity offset error Blood flow
The authors thank Prof. Emmanuel Messas, Principal Investigator of the ElastoCardio Project.
Study conception and design: DC, EM. Data acquisition: DC, UG, GS, EM. Data analysis and interpretation: DC, AFP, MEC, UG, JA, GS, EM. Manuscript drafting: DC, AFP, MEC, UG, JA, GS, EM. Critical revision: DC, AFP, MEC, UG, JA, GS, EM
This work was partially supported by grants, PIP no. 1220130100480 (CONICET, Argentine) and PICT no. 2016-0945 (MINCyT, Argentine).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All experiments were performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and as approved by the local Ethics Committee.
Informed written consent was obtained from all volunteers.
- 2.Mercer-Rosa L, Yang W, Kutty S, Rychik J, Fogel M, Goldmuntz E (2012) Quantifying pulmonary regurgitation and right ventricular function in surgically repaired tetralogy of Fallot: a comparative analysis of echocardiography and magnetic resonance imaging. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 5(5):637–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Dyverfeldt P, Bissell M, Barker AJ, Bolger AF, Carlhall CJ, Ebbers T, Francios CJ, Frydrychowicz A, Geiger J, Giese D, Hope MD, Kilner PJ, Kozerke S, Myerson S, Neubauer S, Wieben O, Markl M (2015) 4D flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance consensus statement. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 17:72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Bollache E, Redheuil A, Clement-Guinaudeau S, Defrance C, Perdrix L, Ladouceur M, Lefort M, De Cesare A, Herment A, Diebold B, Mousseaux E, Kachenoura N (2010) Automated left ventricular diastolic function evaluation from phase-contrast cardiovascular magnetic resonance and comparison with Doppler echocardiography. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 12:63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Defrance C, Bollache E, Kachenoura N, Perdrix L, Hrynchyshyn N, Bruguiere E, Redheuil A, Diebold B, Mousseaux E (2012) Evaluation of aortic valve stenosis using cardiovascular magnetic resonance: comparison of an original semiautomated analysis of phase-contrast cardiovascular magnetic resonance with Doppler echocardiography. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 5(5):604–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Chelu RG, van den Bosch AE, van Kranenburg M, Hsiao A, van den Hoven AT, Ouhlous M, Budde RP, Beniest KM, Swart LE, Coenen A, Lubbers MM, Wielopolski PA, Vasanawala SS, Roos-Hesselink JW, Nieman K (2016) Qualitative grading of aortic regurgitation: a pilot study comparing CMR 4D flow and echocardiography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 32(2):301–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Bollache E, Fedak PWM, van Ooij P, Rahman O, Malaisrie SC, McCarthy PM, Carr JC, Powell A, Collins JD, Markl M, Barker AJ (2017) Perioperative evaluation of regional aortic wall shear stress patterns in patients undergoing aortic valve and/or proximal thoracic aortic replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 155(6):2277–2286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Binter C, Gotschy A, Sundermann SH, Frank M, Tanner FC, Luscher TF, Manka R, Kozerke S (2017) Turbulent kinetic energy assessed by multipoint 4-dimensional flow magnetic resonance imaging provides additional information relative to echocardiography for the determination of aortic stenosis severity. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 10:6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.van Ooij P, Allen BD, Contaldi C, Garcia J, Collins J, Carr J, Choudhury L, Bonow RO, Barker AJ, Markl M (2016) 4D flow MRI and T1-mapping: assessment of altered cardiac hemodynamics and extracellular volume fraction in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. J Magn Reson Imaging 43(1):107–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Gatehouse PD, Rolf MP, Graves MJ, Hofman MB, Totman J, Werner B, Quest RA, Liu Y, von Spiczak J, Dieringer M, Firmin DN, van Rossum A, Lombardi M, Schwitter J, Schulz-Menger J, Kilner PJ (2010) Flow measurement by cardiovascular magnetic resonance: a multi-centre multi-vendor study of background phase offset errors that can compromise the accuracy of derived regurgitant or shunt flow measurements. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 12:5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Ebbers T, Haraldsson H, Dyverfeldt P, Sigfridsson A, Warntjes MJB, Wigström L (2008) Higher order weighted least-squares phase offset correction for improved accuracy in phase-contrast MRI. In: ISMRMGoogle Scholar