Comparison of two accelerated 4D-flow sequences for aortic flow quantification
Comparison of two accelerated 4D-flow sequences for aortic flow quantification
复制标题
DOI：
10.1038/s41598-019-45196-x
复制
发表时间：
2019-06-14
影响因子：
4.6
通讯作者：
Gutberlet, Matthias
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ebel, Sebastian;Dufke, Josefin;Gutberlet, Matthias
在健康志愿者中比较两种广泛使用的4D血流序列与2D血流序列的绝对血流参数、图像质量（IQ）和涡流校正（ECC）。40名志愿者（42 +/- 11.8岁，22名女性）接受了3 T扫描仪检查。使用3D-T2 w-SPACE-STIR序列进行形态学评估，并使用两个加速4D血流序列进行比较，一个使用k-t欠采样，一个使用标准GRAPPA并行成像。使用2D流作为参考标准。定制的软件工具Bloodline能够在同一位置进行所有分析的流量测量。在有和没有ECC的情况下进行定量血流分析。一名阅片人在3分分级量表上评估了路径线IQ（IQ-PATH）和运动伪影发生率（IQ-ART），越高越好。与标准GRAPPA相比，k-t GRAPPA允许显著的平均扫描时间减少46%（17：56 +/- 5：26 min vs. 10：40 +/- 3：15 min），并提供显著更少的运动伪影（IQ-ART 1.57 +/- 0.55 vs. 0.84 +/- 0.48; p < 0.001）。无论是否有ECC，4D血流序列在流量或峰值速度结果方面均无显著差异。然而，4D血流序列和2D血流序列之间的相关性在ECC中更好; k-t GRAPPA序列表现最好（R = 0.96 vs. 0.90）。k-t GRAPPA 4D血流不劣于标准GRAPPA序列，显示更少的伪影，具有可比的IQ，并且几乎快两倍。
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.