A phantom study comparing radial trajectories for accelerated cardiac 4D flow MRI against a particle imaging velocimetry reference

• Published in: Magnetic resonance in medicine Vol. 86; no. 1; pp. 363 - 371
• Main Authors: Corrado, Philip A., Medero, Rafael, Johnson, Kevin M., François, Christopher J., Roldán‐Alzate, Alejandro, Wieben, Oliver
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.07.2021
• Subjects: Blood Flow Velocity; Computed tomography; dual‐Venc; flow; Imaging, Three-Dimensional; Kinetic energy; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Medical imaging; non‐cartesian; Optimization; phantom; radial; Reproducibility of Results; Retrospective Studies; Rheology; validation; Velocimetry; Velocity; Ventricle; Wall shear stresses; phantom; radial; dual-Venc; flow; validation; non-cartesian
• DOI: 10.1002/mrm.28698
• ISSN: 0740-3194; 1522-2594

Purpose Radial sampling is one method to accelerate 4D flow MRI acquisition, making feasible dual‐velocity encoding (Venc) assessment of slow flow in the left ventricle (LV). Here, two radial trajectories are compared in vitro for this application: 3D radial (phase‐contrast vastly undersampled isotropic projection, PC‐VIPR) versus stack of stars (phase‐contrast stack of stars, PC‐SOS), with benchtop particle imaging velocimetry (PIV) serving as a reference standard. Methods The study contained three steps: (1) Construction of an MRI‐ and PIV‐compatible LV model from a healthy adult’s CT images. (2) In vitro PIV using a pulsatile flow pump. (3) In vitro dual‐Venc 4D flow MRI using PC‐VIPR and PC‐SOS (two repeat experiments). Each MR image set was retrospectively undersampled to five effective scan durations and compared with the PIV reference. The root‐mean‐square velocity vector difference (RMSE) between MRI and PIV images was compared, along with kinetic energy (KE) and wall shear stress (WSS). Results RMSE increased as scan time decreased for both MR acquisitions. RMSE was 3% lower in PC‐SOS images than PC‐VIPR images in 30‐min scans (3.8 vs. 3.9 cm/s) but 98% higher in 2.5‐min scans (9.5 vs. 4.8 cm/s). PIV intrasession repeatability showed a RMSE of 4.4 cm/s, reflecting beat‐to‐beat flow variation, while MRI had intersession RMSEs of 3.8/3.5 cm/s for VIPR/SOS, respectively. Speed, KE, and WSS were overestimated voxel‐wise in 30‐min MRI scans relative to PIV by 0.4/0.3 cm/s, 0.2/0.1 μJ/mL, and 36/43 mPa, respectively, for VIPR/SOS. Conclusions PIV is feasible for application‐specific 4D flow MRI protocol optimization. PC‐VIPR is better‐suited to dual‐Venc LV imaging with short scan times.