Key result
Semiautomated 4D flow MRI analysis demonstrated good reproducibility and detected significant differences in descending aorta peak velocities between congenital and tricuspid aortic valves (P=0.014).
Why the study?
Does a semiautomated workflow for aortic 4-dimensional flow MRI accurately detect hemodynamic differences in patients with aortic dilatation compared to manual segmentation?
Population
20 patients with aortic dilatation
Comparison
Semiautomated workflow for the analysis of… vs Manual segmentation of vessel contours
Design
Cross-sectional
Authors
Loading...
May aid efficient aortic hemodynamic assessment; leaves open larger validation for valve-type differences.
Observational (n=20)
Does a semiautomated workflow for aortic 4-dimensional flow MRI accurately detect hemodynamic differences in patients with aortic dilatation compared to manual segmentation?
p-value: p=0.014
A semiautomated workflow for 4D flow MRI analysis of aortic hemodynamics offers good reproducibility and accuracy with reduced analysis time compared to manual segmentation.
Schnell et al. (2015) conducted an observational in Aortic dilatation with congenital or tricuspid aortic valves (n=20). Semiautomated 4D flow MRI analysis vs. Manual segmentation and tricuspid aortic valves was evaluated on Interobserver variability, accuracy of hemodynamic parameters, and detection of cohort differences (p=0.014). Semiautomated 4D flow MRI analysis demonstrated good reproducibility and detected significant differences in descending aorta peak velocities between congenital and tricuspid aortic valves (P=0.014).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: