PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 19, 2026Applied Sciences0 citationsOpen Access

Reproducibility of 4D Flow MRI-Derived Diastolic Function Testing by Mitral and Pulmonary Venous Flow Indices in Healthy Volunteers

View Full Paper
TBThomas in de BraektPRPaul R. RoosPHPatrick Houthuizen

Key Result

4D Flow MRI showed moderate-to-strong scan-rescan agreement for most mitral and pulmonary venous flow parameters (ICC 0.51-0.92, p<0.05), but substantial variability restricts clinical use.

Key Points

  • This research aims to assess the reproducibility of MV and PV flow velocities measured by 4D Flow MRI in healthy individuals.
  • Conducted whole-heart 3T 4D Flow MRI in 21 healthy volunteers with multiple scan sessions.
  • Evaluated different respiratory compensation strategies: motion-uncompensated free-breathing and respiratory motion-compensated navigator gating.
  • Analyzed flow parameters (e.g., E-wave velocity, E/A ratio) using ICCs, Bland–Altman analysis, and Pearson’s correlation.
  • Moderate-to-strong agreement for most MV and PV parameters with ICC values ranging from 0.51 to 0.92.
  • Limited agreement for indices like E DT and certain PV parameters, with ICC values from -0.13 to 0.47.
  • Intraobserver agreement was mostly moderate-to-excellent, while interobserver agreement was poor for some parameters.

Study Design

Type

Cross-Sectional (n=21)

Structured PICO

What is the scan-rescan reproducibility of 4D Flow MRI-derived diastolic function parameters in healthy volunteers?

P
Population
21 healthy volunteers, mean age 25 ± 4 years
I
Intervention
Repeated whole-heart 3T 4D Flow MRI
C
Comparator
Scan-rescan comparison (motion-uncompensated free-breathing vs. respiratory motion-compensated navigator gating)
O
Outcome
Scan-rescan reproducibility of mitral valve (MV) and pulmonary vein (PV) flow velocitiessurrogate

4D Flow MRI shows acceptable reproducibility for selected diastolic flow parameters, but substantial variability in key indices like E/e' currently limits its clinical applicability.

Main Result

Effect estimate: ICC 0.51-0.92

p-value: p=<0.05

Limitations

  • Substantial variability and limited robustness for key indices currently restrict its clinical applicability

Abstract

Accurate assessment of mitral valve (MV) and pulmonary vein (PV) flow velocities is important for left ventricular diastolic function testing. This study investigated the scan–rescan reproducibility of 4D Flow MRI-assessed MV and PV flow velocities in 21 healthy volunteers (25 ± 4 years). Participants underwent repeated whole-heart 3T 4D Flow MRI involving repositioning and different respiratory compensation strategies (motion-uncompensated free-breathing vs. respiratory motion-compensated navigator gating). MV parameters (net flow volume (NFV), E-wave velocity, A-wave velocity, E/A ratio, E deceleration time (DT), annular e’ velocity, E/e’ ratio) and PV parameters (NFV, S-wave velocity, D-wave velocity, S/D ratio, atrial reversal (AR) wave velocity) were derived from velocity–time curves and compared using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), Bland–Altman analysis, and Pearson’s correlation (r). Results showed significant moderate-to-strong scan–rescan agreement and correlation for most MV and PV parameters (ICC = 0.51–0.92; r = 0.51–0.92; all p < 0.05), except E DT, e’ velocity, E/e’ ratio, PV NFV, and AR velocity (ICC = −0.13–0.47; r = −0.14–0.47). Subanalysis of respiratory motion strategies showed moderate-to-strong agreement and correlation for MV and PV parameters (ICC = 0.61–0.99; r = 0.52–0.99; all p < 0.05 excluding E DT), except E DT (ICC = 0.44) and PV NFV (ICC = 0.46; r = 0.46). While intraobserver agreement was mostly moderate-to-excellent (ICC = 0.58–0.97; ICC = 0.41 for E DT), interobserver agreement was poor for E DT and PV parameters (ICC = −0.12–0.34). Overall, 4D Flow MRI shows acceptable reproducibility for selected diastolic flow parameters, particularly mitral inflow indices, but substantial variability and limited robustness for key indices currently restrict its clinical applicability.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Braekt et al. (2026) conducted a cross-sectional in Healthy volunteers (n=21). 4D Flow MRI vs. Scan-rescan and different respiratory compensation strategies was evaluated on Scan-rescan reproducibility of MV and PV flow velocities (ICC 0.51-0.92, p=<0.05). 4D Flow MRI showed moderate-to-strong scan-rescan agreement for most mitral and pulmonary venous flow parameters (ICC 0.51-0.92, p<0.05), but substantial variability restricts clinical use.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69e47321010ef96374d8efa1https://doi.org/10.3390/app16083930
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper