Comparison of compressed sensing and conventional 4D flow MRI for turbulent kinetic energy assessment in healthy participants and patients with aortic stenosis

Q: What is the clinical evidence from this study?

Study design: Cross-Sectional. Population: Aortic stenosis (n=35). Intervention: Compressed sensing (CS) 4D flow MRI vs. Conventional 4D flow MRI (GRAPPA, R = 2). Primary outcome: Maximum total turbulent kinetic energy (TKEmax) at the ascending aorta in patients with aortic stenosis (5.0% difference, p=0.129).

Q: What does this research mean for the field?

Compressed sensing 4D flow MRI demonstrates good agreement with conventional 4D flow MRI for measuring ascending aorta turbulent kinetic energy in patients with aortic stenosis, but yields large relative overestimations in healthy controls due to low baseline turbulent kinetic energy. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.METHODOLOGICAL. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.NEUTRAL.

Sungho Park; Jeong‐Eun Yi; Ning Jin; Hojin Ha; Dongyeop Han; Su Ho Kim; Bae Young Lee; Alex J. Barker; Hyungkyu Huh

doi:10.1038/s41598-026-55843-9

June 10, 2026Scientific ReportsOpen Access

Comparison of compressed sensing and conventional 4D flow MRI for turbulent kinetic energy assessment in healthy participants and patients with aortic stenosis

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Share

Key result

Compressed sensing 4D flow MRI matches conventional MRI for assessing turbulent kinetic energy in aortic stenosis.

+5.0% difference
P=0.129
n=35

Figures

Why the study?

The study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of turbulent kinetic energy assessments using compressed sensing-accelerated 4D flow MRI in patients with aortic stenosis.

Does compressed sensing-accelerated 4D flow MRI provide comparable turbulent kinetic energy assessments to conventional 4D flow MRI in healthy participants and patients with aortic stenosis?

Key Points

To evaluate the feasibility and accuracy of turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) assessment using compressed sensing (CS)-accelerated 4D flow MRI in healthy participants and patients with aortic stenosis.
Sequentially acquired conventional (acceleration factor R = 2 with GRAPPA) and CS-accelerated (R = 7.7) 4D flow MRI scans in healthy participants and patients with aortic stenosis.
Calculated maximum total TKE (TKE max) across the ascending aorta (AAo) and the whole aortic region, comparing methods using voxel-wise Bland-Altman, orthogonal regression, and paired t-tests.
In aortic stenosis patients, CS 4D flow MRI demonstrated close agreement with conventional imaging, showing a 5.0% difference in TKE max at the AAo (14.0 ± 4.6 mJ by GRAPPA vs. 14.8 ± 5.5 mJ by CS; P = 0.129) and a 7.4% difference in the whole aorta (16.3 ± 5.5 mJ vs. 17.6 ± 6.5 mJ; P = 0.050).
In healthy participants, CS 4D flow MRI yielded significantly higher TKE max, showing a 95.4% increase in the AAo (0.74 ± 0.43 mJ vs. 1.17 ± 0.72 mJ; P = 0.053) and a 207.7% increase across the whole aorta (1.13 ± 0.73 mJ vs. 2.13 ± 0.95 mJ; P = 0.006).
Acquisition time dropped from 390 ± 72 s to 144 ± 30 s in patients and from 420 ± 90 s to 144 ± 36 s in healthy participants when using CS acceleration.

Study Design

Type

Cross-Sectional (n=35)

Multicenter

Yes

Structured PICO

Does compressed sensing-accelerated 4D flow MRI provide comparable turbulent kinetic energy assessments to conventional 4D flow MRI in healthy participants and patients with aortic stenosis?

P

Population

35 participants, comprising 13 healthy individuals and 22 older adults with moderate aortic stenosis, underwent sequential conventional and compressed sensing 4D flow MRI scans.

I

Intervention

Compressed sensing (CS)-accelerated 4D flow MRI (R = 7.7) acquired using a VENC set to approximately 75% of the peak velocity.

C

Comparator

Conventional 4D flow MRI (GRAPPA, R = 2) acquired using the same VENC setting (approximately 75% of the peak velocity).

O

Outcome

Total turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) measured in the ascending aorta (AAo) and the whole aortic region (specifically maximum total TKE and sum of total TKE during systole).surrogate

Main Result

Effect estimate: 5.0% difference

Absolute Event Rate: 14.8% vs 14%

p-value: p=0.129

Compressed sensing-accelerated 4D flow MRI significantly reduces scan time and provides comparable turbulent kinetic energy assessments in the ascending aorta of patients with aortic stenosis, though it overestimates values in low-flow healthy participants.

Limitations

Lack of systematic investigation of TKE estimation across varying acceleration rates
The parameter λ used in CS reconstruction governs the strength of CS regularization and may contribute to discrepancies
Differences between the MRI scanners used for healthy participants and AS patients may have contributed to systematic biases
CS-accelerated TKE distribution may be affected differently by the spatial and temporal evolution of flow patterns
Clinical parameters were not widely distributed among AS patients diagnosed with moderate AS
Inconsistencies in age and sequence parameters between healthy participants and AS patients
Lack of systematic investigation across varying acceleration rates
Impact of parameter λ in CS reconstruction not fully delineated
Different scanners used for healthy participants and AS patients may introduce systematic biases
Effects of blood flow structures on CS-accelerated TKE distribution not systematically analyzed
Narrow distribution of clinical parameters among moderate AS patients
Inconsistencies in age and sequence parameters between healthy and AS cohorts

Implication

CS-accelerated 4D flow MRI may enable TKE assessment in AS; leaves open clinical utility and outcome validation.

Abstract

This study aims to evaluate the feasibility of turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) assessments using compressed sensing (CS)-accelerated three-dimensional time-resolved phase-contrast magnetic resonance imaging (4D flow MRI) in patients with aortic stenosis (AS). Conventional and CS 4D flow MRI (R = 2 with GRAPPA and R = 7.7 with CS, respectively) were sequentially acquired for voxel-wise comparison in healthy participants and patients. Total TKE was measured in both the ascending aorta (AAo) and the whole aortic region. The difference between GRAPPA and CS was expressed as the ratio of (CS 4D flow - Conventional 4D flow) to (Conventional 4D flow). A two-tailed paired t-test was used to assess statistical significance. In healthy participants, the maximum total TKE (TKE max ) measured by CS 4D flow MRI was substantially higher than that obtained with conventional 4D flow MRI, showing a 95.4% increase in the AAo region (0.74 ± 0.43 mJ by GRAPPA vs. 1.17 ± 0.72 mJ by CS; P = 0.053) and a 207.7% increase in the whole aortic region (1.13 ± 0.73 mJ by GRAPPA vs. 2.13 ± 0.95 mJ by CS; P = 0.006). In patients with AS, CS 4D flow MRI showed good agreement with conventional imaging, with only a 5.0% difference in TKE max at the AAo (14.0 ± 4.6 mJ by GRAPPA vs. 14.8 ± 5.5 mJ by CS; P = 0.129) and a 7.4% difference in the whole region (16.3 ± 5.5 mJ by GRAPPA vs. 17.6 ± 6.5 mJ by CS; P = 0.050). CS 4D flow MRI demonstrated agreement, showing insignificant differences in total TKE measurements specifically within the AAo for AS patients. In healthy participants, CS-based TKE assessment showed larger relative differences compared with conventional 4D flow MRI, likely reflecting a low-TKE effect.

Discussion

No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.

Cite This Study

Park et al. (2026) conducted a cross-sectional in Aortic stenosis (n=35). Compressed sensing (CS) 4D flow MRI vs. Conventional 4D flow MRI (GRAPPA, R = 2) was evaluated on Maximum total turbulent kinetic energy (TKEmax) at the ascending aorta in patients with aortic stenosis (5.0% difference, p=0.129). In patients with aortic stenosis, compressed sensing 4D flow MRI demonstrated good agreement with conventional 4D flow MRI for measuring maximum total turbulent kinetic energy at the ascending aorta (14.8 vs 14.0 mJ, p=0.129).

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a2ba58f8101cf8926f0376d https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-55843-9

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Share

Comparison of compressed sensing and conventional 4D flow MRI for turbulent kinetic energy assessment in healthy participants and patients with aortic stenosis

Figures

Key Points

Study Design

Structured PICO

Main Result

Limitations

Implication

Abstract

Discussion

Cite This Study

Comparison of compressed sensing and conventional 4D flow MRI for turbulent kinetic energy assessment in healthy participants and patients with aortic stenosis

Figures

Key Points

Study Design

Structured PICO

Main Result

Limitations

Implication

Abstract

Discussion

Cite This Study

Keep reading

Keep reading