Key result
4D flow MRI with valve tracking and particle tracing demonstrates highly reproducible LV flow assessment.
Why the study?
The in-scan and scan-rescan consistency of LV in- and outflow assessment using 2D planimetry compared with 4D flow MRI techniques required evaluation.
Does 4D flow MRI with retrospective valve tracking or particle tracing provide reliable in-scan and scan-rescan consistency compared to 2D planimetry for LV in- and outflow assessment in healthy volunteers?
Observational (n=10)
Does 4D flow MRI with retrospective valve tracking or particle tracing provide reliable in-scan and scan-rescan consistency compared to 2D planimetry for LV in- and outflow assessment in healthy volunteers?
Effect estimate: r ≥ 0.95
p-value: p=≤0.001
4D flow MRI with retrospective valve tracking and particle tracing shows good in-scan consistency and strong scan-rescan reproducibility for LV in- and outflow assessment, indicating clinical reliability.
4D flow MRI consistency for LV flow assessment in volunteers leaves open validation in patients before clinical use.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the in-scan and scan-rescan consistency of left ventricular (LV) in- and outflow assessment from 1) 2D planimetry; 2) 4D flow magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with retrospective valve tracking, and 3) 4D flow MRI with particle tracing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten healthy volunteers (age 27 ± 3 years) underwent multislice cine short-axis planimetry and whole-heart 4D flow MRI on a 3T MRI scanner twice with repositioning between the scans. LV in- and outflow was compared from 1) 2D planimetry; 2) 4D flow MRI with retrospective valve tracking over the mitral valve (MV) and aortic valve (AV), and 3) 4D flow MRI with particle tracing through forward and backward integration of velocity data. RESULTS: In-scan consistency between MV and AV flow volumes is excellent for both 4D flow MRI methods with r ≥ 0.95 (P ≤ 0.001). In-scan AV and MV flow by retrospective valve tracking shows good to excellent correlations versus AV and MV flow by particle tracing (r ≥ 0.81, P ≤ 0.004). Scan-rescan SV assessment by 2D planimetry shows excellent reproducibility (intraclass correlation [ICC] = 0.98, P < 0.001, coefficient of variation [CV] = 7%). Scan-rescan MV and AV flow volume assessment by retrospective valve tracking shows strong reproducibility (ICCs ≥ 0.89, P ≤ 0.05, CVs = 12%), as well as by forward and backward particle tracing (ICCs ≥ 0.90, P ≤ 0.001, CVs ≤ 11%). Multicomponent particle tracing shows good scan-rescan reproducibility (ICCs ≥ 0.81, P ≤ 0.007, CVs ≤ 16%). CONCLUSION: LV in- and outflow assessment by 2D planimetry and 4D flow MRI with retrospective valve tracking and particle tracing show good in-scan consistency and strong scan-rescan reproducibility, which indicates that both 4D flow MRI methods are reliable and can be used clinically. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Technical Efficacy Stage: 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:511-522.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kamphuis et al. (2017) conducted an observational in Healthy volunteers (n=10). 4D flow MRI with retrospective valve tracking and particle tracing vs. 2D planimetry was evaluated on In-scan and scan-rescan consistency of LV in- and outflow assessment (r ≥ 0.95, p=≤0.001). 4D flow MRI with retrospective valve tracking and particle tracing showed excellent in-scan consistency (r ≥ 0.95) and strong scan-rescan reproducibility (ICCs ≥ 0.89) for LV flow assessment.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: