Advertisement

Magnetic Resonance Angiography

Chapter

Abstract

The clinical use of magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) has rapidly expanded as technological advances in both hardware and imaging techniques overcome previous limitations. This is particularly true for imaging of patients with congenital heart disease (CHD), who are often younger and frequently require continued, lifelong imaging follow-up. In this chapter, we will review recent developments in contrast-enhanced (CE) MRA and non-contrast-enhanced (NCE) MRA techniques applicable to CHD.

Keywords

Congenital Heart Disease Magnetic Resonance Angiography Specific Absorption Rate Contrast Bolus Magnetic Resonance Angiography Technique 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Earls JP, Rofsky NM, DeCorato DR, Krinsky GA, Weinreb JC. Breath-hold single-dose gadolinium-enhanced three-dimensional MR aortography: usefulness of a timing examination and MR power injector. Radiology. 1996;201(3):705–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wilman AH, Riederer SJ, King BF, Debbins JP, Rossman PJ, Ehman RL. Fluoroscopically triggered contrast-enhanced three-dimensional MR angiography with elliptical centric view order: application to the renal arteries. Radiology. 1997;205(1):137–46.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Maki JH, Prince MR, Londy FJ, Chenevert TL. The effects of time varying intravascular signal intensity and k-space acquisition order on three-dimensional MR angiography image quality. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1996;6(4):642–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Groves EM, Bireley W, Dill K, Carroll TJ, Carr JC. Quantitative analysis of ECG-gated high-resolution contrast-enhanced MR angiography of the thoracic aorta. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188(2):522–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bireley 2nd WR, Diniz LO, Groves EM, Dill K, Carroll TJ, Carr JC. Orthogonal measurement of thoracic aorta luminal diameter using ECG-gated high-resolution contrast-enhanced MR angiography. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;26(6):1480–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Burman ED, Keegan J, Kilner PJ. Aortic root measurement by cardiovascular magnetic resonance: specification of planes and lines of measurement and corresponding normal values. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2008;1(2):104–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Griswold MA, Jakob PM, Heidemann RM, et al. Generalized autocalibrating partially parallel acquisitions (GRAPPA). Magn Reson Med. 2002;47(6):1202–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sodickson DK, McKenzie CA. A generalized approach to parallel magnetic resonance imaging. Med Phys. 2001;28(8):1629–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pruessmann KP, Weiger M, Boesiger P. Sensitivity encoded cardiac MRI. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2001;3(1):1–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wilson GJ, Hoogeveen RM, Willinek WA, Muthupillai R, Maki JH. Parallel imaging in MR angiography. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2004;15(3):169–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fenchel M, Doering J, Seeger A, et al. Ultrafast whole-body MR angiography with two-dimensional parallel imaging at 3.0 T: feasibility study. Radiology. 2009;250(1):254–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lum DP, Busse RF, Francois CJ, et al. Increased volume of coverage for abdominal contrast-enhanced MR angiography with two-dimensional autocalibrating parallel imaging: initial experience at 3.0 Tesla. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009;30(5):1093–100.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nael K, Fenchel M, Krishnam M, Finn JP, Laub G, Ruehm SG. 3.0 Tesla high spatial resolution contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA) of the pulmonary circulation: initial experience with a 32-channel phased array coil using a high relaxivity contrast agent. Invest Radiol. 2007;42(6):392–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Huang BY, Castillo M. Neurovascular imaging at 1.5 Tesla versus 3.0 Tesla. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2009;17(1):29–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tomasian A, Salamon N, Lohan DG, Jalili M, Villablanca JP, Finn JP. Supraaortic arteries: contrast material dose reduction at 3.0-T high-spatial-resolution MR angiography–feasibility study. Radiology. 2008;249(3):980–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Habibi R, Krishnam MS, Lohan DG, et al. High-spatial-resolution lower extremity MR angiography at 3.0 T: contrast agent dose comparison study. Radiology. 2008;248(2):680–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Attenberger UI, Michaely HJ, Wintersperger BJ, et al. Three-dimensional contrast-enhanced magnetic-resonance angiography of the renal arteries: interindividual comparison of 0.2 mmol/kg gadobutrol at 1.5 T and 0.1 mmol/kg gadobenate dimeglumine at 3.0 T. Eur Radiol. 2008;18(6):1260–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rofsky NM, Johnson G, Adelman MA, Rosen RJ, Krinsky GA, Weinreb JC. Peripheral vascular disease evaluated with reduced-dose gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography. Radiology. 1997;205(1):163–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Collins CM, Liu W, Schreiber W, Yang QX, Smith MB. Central brightening due to constructive interference with, without, and despite dielectric resonance. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2005;21(2):192–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vaughan JT, Adriany G, Snyder CJ, et al. Efficient high-frequency body coil for high-field MRI. Magn Reson Med. 2004;52(4):851–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Saekho S, Yip CY, Noll DC, Boada FE, Stenger VA. Fast-kz three-dimensional tailored radiofrequency pulse for reduced B1 inhomogeneity. Magn Reson Med. 2006;55(4):719–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shellock FG, Crues JV. MR procedures: biologic effects, safety, and patient care. Radiology. 2004;232(3):635–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shellock FG, Shields Jr CL. Radiofrequency energy-induced heating of bovine articular cartilage using a bipolar radiofrequency electrode. Am J Sports Med. 2000;28(5):720–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Barth MM, Smith MP, Pedrosa I, Lenkinski RE, Rofsky NM. Body MR imaging at 3.0 T: understanding the opportunities and challenges. Radiographics. 2007;27(5):1445–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rapp JH, Wolff SD, Quinn SF, et al. Aortoiliac occlusive disease in patients with known or suspected peripheral vascular disease: safety and efficacy of gadofosveset-enhanced MR angiography–multicenter comparative phase III study. Radiology. 2005;236(1):71–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rohrer M, Bauer H, Mintorovitch J, Requardt M, Weinmann HJ. Comparison of magnetic properties of MRI contrast media solutions at different magnetic field strengths. Invest Radiol. 2005;40(11):715–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Klessen C, Hein PA, Huppertz A, et al. First-pass whole-body magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) using the blood-pool contrast medium gadofosveset trisodium: comparison to gadopentetate dimeglumine. Invest Radiol. 2007;42(9):659–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Maki JH, Wang M, Wilson GJ, Shutske MG, Leiner T. Highly accelerated first-pass contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography of the peripheral vasculature: comparison of gadofosveset trisodium with gadopentetate dimeglumine contrast agents. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009;30(5):1085–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Naehle CP, Kaestner M, Muller A, et al. First-pass and steady-state MR angiography of thoracic vasculature in children and adolescents. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010;3(5):504–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Makowski MR, Wiethoff AJ, Uribe S, et al. Congenital heart disease: cardiovascular MR imaging by using an intravascular blood pool contrast agent. Radiology. 2011;260(3):680–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Finn JP, Baskaran V, Carr JC, et al. Thorax: low-dose contrast-enhanced three-dimensional MR angiography with subsecond temporal resolution – initial results. Radiology. 2002;224(3):896–904.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    van Vaals JJ, Brummer ME, Dixon WT, et al. “Keyhole” method for accelerating imaging of contrast agent uptake. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1993;3(4):671–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Korosec FR, Frayne R, Grist TM, Mistretta CA. Time-resolved contrast-enhanced 3D MR angiography. Magn Reson Med. 1996;36(3):345–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lim RP, Shapiro M, Wang EY, et al. 3D Time-resolved MR angiography (MRA) of the carotid arteries with time-resolved imaging with stochastic trajectories: comparison with 3D contrast-enhanced Bolus-Chase MRA and 3D time-of-flight MRA. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2008;29(10):1847–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Haider CR, Hu HH, Campeau NG, Huston 3rd J, Riederer SJ. 3D high temporal and spatial resolution contrast-enhanced MR angiography of the whole brain. Magn Reson Med. 2008;60(3):749–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Shors SM, Cotts WG, Pavlovic-Surjancev B, Francois CJ, Gheorghiade M, Finn JP. Heart failure: evaluation of cardiopulmonary transit times with time-resolved MR angiography. Radiology. 2003;229(3):743–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Francois CJ, Shors SM, Bonow RO, Finn JP. Analysis of cardiopulmonary transit times at contrast material-enhanced MR imaging in patients with heart disease. Radiology. 2003;227(2):447–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Goo HW, Yang DH, Park IS, et al. Time-resolved three-dimensional contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography in patients who have undergone a Fontan operation or bidirectional cavopulmonary connection: initial experience. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;25(4):727–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wagner M, Nguyen KL, Khan S, et al. Contrast-enhanced MR angiography of cavopulmonary connections in adult patients with congenital heart disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199(5):W565–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Perazella MA. Advanced kidney disease, gadolinium and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: the perfect storm. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens. 2009;18(6):519–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Perazella MA, Rodby RA. Gadolinium-induced nephrogenic systemic fibrosis in patients with kidney disease. Am J Med. 2007;120(7):561–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sadowski EA, Bennett LK, Chan MR, et al. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: risk factors and incidence estimation. Radiology. 2007;243(1):148–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Provenzale JM, Sarikaya B. Comparison of test performance characteristics of MRI, MR angiography, and CT angiography in the diagnosis of carotid and vertebral artery dissection: a review of the medical literature. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193(4):1167–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Buhk JH, Kallenberg K, Mohr A, Dechent P, Knauth M. Evaluation of angiographic computed tomography in the follow-up after endovascular treatment of cerebral aneurysms – a comparative study with DSA and TOF-MRA. Eur Radiol. 2009;19(2):430–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Miyazaki M, Lee VS. Nonenhanced MR angiography. Radiology. 2008;248(1):20–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    François CJ, Tuite D, Deshpande V, Jerecic R, Weale P, Carr JC. Unenhanced MR angiography of the thoracic aorta: initial clinical evaluation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190(4):902–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Francois CJ, Tuite D, Deshpande V, Jerecic R, Weale P, Carr JC. Pulmonary vein imaging with unenhanced three-dimensional balanced steady-state free precession MR angiography: initial clinical evaluation. Radiology. 2009;250(3):932–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Krishnam MS, Tomasian A, Malik S, Desphande V, Laub G, Ruehm SG. Image quality and diagnostic accuracy of unenhanced SSFP MR angiography compared with conventional contrast-enhanced MR angiography for the assessment of thoracic aortic diseases. Eur Radiol. 2010;20(6):1311–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Pasqua AD, Barcudi S, Leonardi B, Clemente D, Colajacomo M, Sanders SP. Comparison of contrast and noncontrast magnetic resonance angiography for quantitative analysis of thoracic arteries in young patients with congenital heart defects. Ann Pediatr Cardiol. 2011;4(1):36–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Deshpande VS, Li D. Contrast-enhanced coronary artery imaging using 3D trueFISP. Magn Reson Med. 2003;50(3):570–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Deshpande VS, Shea SM, Laub G, Simonetti OP, Finn JP, Li D. 3D magnetization-prepared true-FISP: a new technique for imaging coronary arteries. Magn Reson Med. 2001;46(3):494–502.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Pelc NJ, Herfkens RJ, Shimakawa A, Enzmann DR. Phase contrast cine magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Q. 1991;7(4):229–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Chai P, Mohiaddin R. How we perform cardiovascular magnetic resonance flow assessment using phase-contrast velocity mapping. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2005;7(4):705–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Pelc NJ, Bernstein MA, Shimakawa A, Glover GH. Encoding strategies for three-direction phase-contrast MR imaging of flow. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1991;1(4):405–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    De Cobelli F, Mellone R, Salvioni M, et al. Renal artery stenosis: value of screening with three-dimensional phase-contrast MR angiography with a phased-array multicoil. Radiology. 1996;201(3):697–703.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Schoenberg SO, Knopp MV, Bock M, et al. Renal artery stenosis: grading of hemodynamic changes with cine phase-contrast MR blood flow measurements. Radiology. 1997;203(1):45–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Markl M, Frydrychowicz A, Kozerke S, Hope M, Wieben O. 4D flow MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;36(5):1015–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Markl M, Harloff A, Bley TA, et al. Time-resolved 3D MR velocity mapping at 3T: improved navigator-gated assessment of vascular anatomy and blood flow. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;25(4):824–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Gu T, Korosec FR, Block WF, et al. PC VIPR: a high-speed 3D phase-contrast method for flow quantification and high-resolution angiography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2005;26(4):743–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Francois CJ, Lum DP, Johnson KM, et al. Renal arteries: isotropic, high-spatial-resolution, unenhanced MR angiography with three-dimensional radial phase contrast. Radiology. 2011;258(1):254–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Stalder AF, Russe MF, Frydrychowicz A, Bock J, Hennig J, Markl M. Quantitative 2D and 3D phase contrast MRI: optimized analysis of blood flow and vessel wall parameters. Magn Reson Med. 2008;60(5):1218–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Markl M, Kilner PJ, Ebbers T. Comprehensive 4D velocity mapping of the heart and great vessels by cardiovascular magnetic resonance. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2011;13:7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Nordmeyer S, Berger F, Kuehne T, Riesenkampff E. Flow-sensitive four-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging facilitates and improves the accurate diagnosis of partial anomalous pulmonary venous drainage. Cardiol Young. 2011;21:1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Nordmeyer S, Riesenkampff E, Crelier G, et al. Flow-sensitive four-dimensional cine magnetic resonance imaging for offline blood flow quantification in multiple vessels: a validation study. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010;32(3):677–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Roes SD, Hammer S, van der Geest RJ, et al. Flow assessment through four heart valves simultaneously using 3-dimensional 3-directional velocity-encoded magnetic resonance imaging with retrospective valve tracking in healthy volunteers and patients with valvular regurgitation. Invest Radiol. 2009;44(10):669–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Uribe S, Beerbaum P, Sorensen TS, Rasmusson A, Razavi R, Schaeffter T. Four-dimensional (4D) flow of the whole heart and great vessels using real-time respiratory self-gating. Magn Reson Med. 2009;62(4):984–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Valverde I, Simpson J, Schaeffter T, Beerbaum P. 4D phase-contrast flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance: comprehensive quantification and visualization of flow dynamics in atrial septal defect and partial anomalous pulmonary venous return. Pediatr Cardiol. 2010;31(8):1244–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Westenberg JJ, Roes SD, Ajmone Marsan N, et al. Mitral valve and tricuspid valve blood flow: accurate quantification with 3D velocity-encoded MR imaging with retrospective valve tracking. Radiology. 2008;249(3):792–800.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Frydrychowicz A, Landgraf B, Wieben O, Francois CJ. Images in Cardiovascular Medicine. Scimitar syndrome: added value by isotropic flow-sensitive four-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging with PC-VIPR (phase-contrast vastly undersampled isotropic projection reconstruction). Circulation. 2010;121(23):e434–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Frydrychowicz A, Markl M, Harloff A, et al. Flow-sensitive in-vivo 4D MR imaging at 3T for the analysis of aortic hemodynamics and derived vessel wall parameters. Rofo. 2007;179(5):463–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Hope TA, Markl M, Wigstrom L, Alley MT, Miller DC, Herfkens RJ. Comparison of flow patterns in ascending aortic aneurysms and volunteers using four-dimensional magnetic resonance velocity mapping. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;26(6):1471–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Markl M, Geiger J, Kilner PJ, et al. Time-resolved three-dimensional magnetic resonance velocity mapping of cardiovascular flow paths in volunteers and patients with Fontan circulation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2011;39(2):206–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Geiger J, Markl M, Jung B, et al. 4D-MR flow analysis in patients after repair for tetralogy of Fallot. Eur Radiol. 2011;21(8):1651–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Francois CJ, Srinivasan S, Schiebler ML, et al. 4D cardiovascular magnetic resonance velocity mapping of alterations of right heart flow patterns and main pulmonary artery hemodynamics in tetralogy of Fallot. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2012;14:16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Lum DP, Johnson KM, Paul RK, et al. Transstenotic pressure gradients: measurement in swine – retrospectively ECG-gated 3D phase-contrast MR angiography versus endovascular pressure-sensing guidewires. Radiology. 2007;245(3):751–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Turk AS, Johnson KM, Lum D, et al. Physiologic and anatomic assessment of a canine carotid artery stenosis model utilizing phase contrast with vastly undersampled isotropic projection imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2007;28(1):111–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Bley TA, Johnson KM, Francois CJ, et al. Noninvasive assessment of transstenotic pressure gradients in porcine renal artery stenoses by using vastly undersampled phase-contrast MR angiography. Radiology. 2011;261(1):266–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Tyszka JM, Laidlaw DH, Asa JW, Silverman JM. Three-dimensional, time-resolved (4D) relative pressure mapping using magnetic resonance imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2000;12(2):321–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Bock J, Frydrychowicz A, Lorenz R, et al. In vivo noninvasive 4D pressure difference mapping in the human aorta: phantom comparison and application in healthy volunteers and patients. Magn Reson Med. 2011;66(4):1079–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Barker AJ, Lanning C, Shandas R. Quantification of hemodynamic wall shear stress in patients with bicuspid aortic valve using phase-contrast MRI. Ann Biomed Eng. 2010;38(3):788–800.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Boussel L, Rayz V, Martin A, et al. Phase-contrast magnetic resonance imaging measurements in intracranial aneurysms in vivo of flow patterns, velocity fields, and wall shear stress: comparison with computational fluid dynamics. Magn Reson Med. 2009;61(2):409–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Frydrychowicz A, Stalder AF, Russe MF, et al. Three-dimensional analysis of segmental wall shear stress in the aorta by flow-sensitive four-dimensional-MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009;30(1):77–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Oyre S, Pedersen EM, Ringgaard S, Boesiger P, Paaske WP. In vivo wall shear stress measured by magnetic resonance velocity mapping in the normal human abdominal aorta. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 1997;13(3):263–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Bieging ET, Frydrychowicz A, Wentland A, et al. In vivo three-dimensional MR wall shear stress estimation in ascending aortic dilatation. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2011;33(3):589–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Petersson S, Dyverfeldt P, Ebbers T. Assessment of the accuracy of MRI wall shear stress estimation using numerical simulations. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;36(1):128–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Markl M, Wallis W, Strecker C, Gladstone BP, Vach W, Harloff A. Analysis of pulse wave velocity in the thoracic aorta by flow-sensitive four-dimensional MRI: reproducibility and correlation with characteristics in patients with aortic atherosclerosis. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;35(5):1162–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Markl M, Wallis W, Brendecke S, Simon J, Frydrychowicz A, Harloff A. Estimation of global aortic pulse wave velocity by flow-sensitive 4D MRI. Magn Reson Med. 2010;63(6):1575–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Arzani A, Dyverfeldt P, Ebbers T, Shadden SC. In vivo validation of numerical prediction for turbulence intensity in an aortic coarctation. Ann Biomed Eng. 2012;40(4):860–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Petersson S, Dyverfeldt P, Gardhagen R, Karlsson M, Ebbers T. Simulation of phase contrast MRI of turbulent flow. Magn Reson Med. 2010;64(4):1039–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Dyverfeldt P, Gardhagen R, Sigfridsson A, Karlsson M, Ebbers T. On MRI turbulence quantification. Magn Reson Imaging. 2009;27(7):913–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Dyverfeldt P, Sigfridsson A, Kvitting JP, Ebbers T. Quantification of intravoxel velocity standard deviation and turbulence intensity by generalizing phase-contrast MRI. Magn Reson Med. 2006;56(4):850–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiology, School of Medicine and Public HealthUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations