Key result
Phase-specific segmentation with 4D flow MRI demonstrated good scan-rescan reproducibility for mean systolic wall shear stress but moderate reproducibility for maximum wall shear stress.
Why the study?
Does phase-specific segmentation with 4D flow MRI provide reproducible segmental aortic wall shear stress measurements in healthy volunteers?
Observational (n=10)
Blinded observers
No
Does phase-specific segmentation with 4D flow MRI provide reproducible segmental aortic wall shear stress measurements in healthy volunteers?
Phase-specific 4D flow MRI provides good reproducibility for mean systolic wall shear stress in the thoracic aorta, but maximum wall shear stress shows higher variability, which must be considered in clinical follow-up.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Phase-specific 4D flow MRI yields reproducible segmental aortic WSS in healthy volunteers; leaves open reliability and utility in patients with aortic disease.
OBJECTIVE: The aim was to investigate scan-rescan reproducibility and observer variability of segmental aortic 3D systolic wall shear stress (WSS) by phase-specific segmentation with 4D flow MRI in healthy volunteers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten healthy volunteers (age 26.5 ± 2.6 years) underwent aortic 4D flow MRI twice. Maximum 3D systolic WSS (WSSmax) and mean 3D systolic WSS (WSSmean) for five thoracic aortic segments over five systolic cardiac phases by phase-specific segmentations were calculated. Scan-rescan analysis and observer reproducibility analysis were performed. RESULTS: Scan-rescan data showed overall good reproducibility for WSSmean (coefficient of variation, COV 10-15%) with moderate-to-strong intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC 0.63-0.89). The variability in WSSmax was high (COV 16-31%) with moderate-to-good ICC (0.55-0.79) for different aortic segments. Intra- and interobserver reproducibility was good-to-excellent for regional aortic WSSmax (ICC ≥ 0.78; COV ≤ 17%) and strong-to-excellent for WSSmean (ICC ≥ 0.86; COV ≤ 11%). In general, ascending aortic segments showed more WSSmax/WSSmean variability compared to aortic arch or descending aortic segments for scan-rescan, intraobserver and interobserver comparison. CONCLUSIONS: Scan-rescan reproducibility was good for WSSmean and moderate for WSSmax for all thoracic aortic segments over multiple systolic phases in healthy volunteers. Intra/interobserver reproducibility for segmental WSS assessment was good-to-excellent. Variability of WSSmax is higher and should be taken into account in case of individual follow-up or in comparative rest-stress studies to avoid misinterpretation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Palen et al. (2018) conducted an observational in Healthy volunteers (n=10). Phase-specific segmentation with 4D flow MRI vs. Rescan (repeated MRI) was evaluated on Scan-rescan reproducibility of mean 3D systolic wall shear stress (WSSmean) (ICC 0.63-0.89). Phase-specific segmentation with 4D flow MRI demonstrated good scan-rescan reproducibility for mean systolic wall shear stress but moderate reproducibility for maximum wall shear stress.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: