Why the study?
Does MRI phase shift velocity mapping agree with intraluminal Doppler ultrasound for high flow velocity measurements in an in vitro flow phantom?
Does MRI phase shift velocity mapping agree with intraluminal Doppler ultrasound for high flow velocity measurements in an in vitro flow phantom?
MRI and intraluminal Doppler ultrasound show good agreement for high flow velocity measurements only when using spatially mean velocities over comparable small regions of interest, highlighting the importance of ROI selection in evaluating valve stenosis.
Requires matched ROIs for in vitro MRI-USD agreement; leaves open clinical translation to valve stenosis.
OBJECTIVE: Differences of opinion in the literature about the agreement between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound Doppler (USD) for high blood velocity measurement were the basis for this investigation. It compares in vitro velocity measurements by MRI with intraluminal USD, using a specially designed flow phantom. DESIGN: The flow phantom consisted of a pulsatile pump, tubing, a prosthetic heart valve, measurement sections and a reservoir. Peak systolic velocities (0.7-5.0 m/s, n = 10) were measured with standard MRI phase shift velocity mapping using different regions of interest (ROIs). Intravascular USD velocity measurements were carried out using a thin cannula measuring peak systolic local maximum and local mean velocity within the small sample volume. RESULTS: Using maximum velocity USD recordings, comparison with MRI velocities was poor when the ROI covered the complete vessel lumen giving offset -22.3% and limits of agreement (LOA) 57.5 and 105.1%. When the ROI was small the velocities were closer with offset -11.8% and LOA 75.3-103.3%. When the spatial resolution was comparable and the spatial mean was read from the USD recordings, the velocities showed good agreement with an offset close to zero (0.45%). CONCLUSION: This study shows the importance of selecting small ROIs when using MRI for evaluating valve stenosis. Only when using spatially mean velocities over comparable regions the two methods showed good agreement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Matre et al. (2002) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: