Quantification of thoracic blood flow using volumetric magnetic resonance imaging with radial velocity encoding: in vivo validation.
Quantification of thoracic blood flow using volumetric magnetic resonance imaging with radial velocity encoding: in vivo validation.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/rli.0b013e31829a4f2f
复制
发表时间：
2013-12
影响因子：
6.7
通讯作者：
François CJ
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Frydrychowicz A;Wieben O;Niespodzany E;Reeder SB;Johnson KM;François CJ
为了验证径向欠采样5点速度编码时间分辨血流敏感磁共振成像(PC-VIPR)对升主动脉(AAO)和主肺动脉(MPA)血流的定量，18名健康志愿者(年龄41.6±16.2岁(22-73岁)；BMI 26.0±3.5(19.1-31.4)岁)采用32通道线圈3T扫描。根据连续的短轴Cine-bSSFP切片计算的左、右室每搏输出量(分别为LVSV和rVSV)被用作心输出量的主要参考。用2D-PC-MRI测量AAO和MPA的血流量作为二次参考。使用PC-VIPR进行时间分辨三维血流敏感磁共振成像(4D-Flow-MRI)，速度敏感度VENC=150 cm/S，重建20个时间帧，空间分辨率各向同性1.4 mm。在11/20名受试者中，还评估了体模校正的4D-Flow-MRI数据。计算左、右室心输出量的方法之间的差异采用Bland-Altman分析(BA，平均差值±2SD)。计算每种方法的QP/QS-比值。PCVIPR组与Cine-bSSFP组比较，差异无统计学意义(LVSV：96.5±14.4ml，rVSV：93.6±14.0mLvs.81.2±24.3mLvs.81.2±24.3mLvs.85.6±25.4mLMPa)，BA差值分别为−14.6±44.0mLaAo和−9.0±45.9mLMPa(p=0.027和0.25)。体模校正对2D-PC-MRI结果的影响较小，与Cine-bSSFP相比，改善了PC-VIPR。结果：校正后，Cine-bSSFP与PC-VIPR的BA差值分别为−1.4±15.3ml(AAo)和−4.1±16.1ml(Mpa)，与2D-PC-MRI相比，BA改善为−12.0±48.1 m L(AAo)和−2.2±19.5m L(Mpa)。所有技术的QP/QS比值结果均在生理范围内。当使用模体校正时，使用径向欠采样的4D-Flow-MRI应用5点速度编码可以准确地定量AAO和MPA血流。
To validate radially undersampled 5-point velocity-encoded time-resolved flow-sensitive MRI (“PC-VIPR”) for quantification of ascending aortic (AAO) and main pulmonary artery (MPA) flow in-vivo Data from 18 healthy volunteers (41.6±16.2years (22–73); BMI 26.0±3.5 (19.1–31.4) scanned at 3T with a 32-channel-coil were included. Left and right ventricular stroke volumes (LVSV and RVSV, respectively) calculated from contiguous short-axis CINE-bSSFP slices were used as the primary reference for cardiac output. Flow measured from 2D-PC-MRI in the AAO and MPA served as a secondary reference. Time-resolved 3-dimensional flow-sensitive MRI (4D-Flow-MRI) using PC-VIPR was performed with a velocity sensitivity Venc=150cm/s reconstructed to 20 time frames at 1.4mm isotropic spatial resolution. In 11/20 subjects, phantom corrected 4D-Flow-MRI data was also assessed. Differences between methods of calculating LV and RV cardiac output were assessed with Bland-Altman analysis (BA, average difference ± 2SD). The QP/QS-ratio was calculated for each method. Initially, PCVIPR compared unfavorably to CINE-bSSFP (LVSV: 96.5±14.4ml, RVSV: 93.6±14.0mL vs. 81.2±24.3mL (AAO) and 85.6±25.4mL (MPA); p=0.027 and 0.25) with BA differences of −14.6±44.0mL (AAO) and −9.0±45.9mL (MPA). While phantom correction had minor effects on 2D-PC-MRI results and comparison to CINE-bSSFP, it improved PC-VIPR results: BA differences between CINE-bSSFP and PC-VIPR after correction were −1.4±15.3ml (AAO) and −4.1±16.1mL (MPA); BA comparison with 2D-PC-MRI improved to −12.0±48.1mL (AAO) and −2.2±19.5mL (MPA). QP/QS-ratio results for all techniques were within physiologic limits. Accurate quantification of AAO and MPA flows with radially undersampled 4D-Flow-MRI applying 5-point velocity encoding is achievable when phantom correction is used.