We have located links that may give you full text access.
Wall shear stress estimation in the aorta: Impact of wall motion, spatiotemporal resolution, and phase noise.
Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging : JMRI 2018 April 2
BACKGROUND: Wall shear stress (WSS) presents an important parameter for assessing blood flow characteristics and evaluating flow-mediated lesions in the aorta.
PURPOSE: To investigate the robustness of WSS and oscillatory shear index (OSI) estimation based on 4D flow MRI against vessel wall motion, spatiotemporal resolution, and velocity encoding (VENC).
STUDY TYPE: Simulated and prospective.
POPULATION: Synthetic 4D flow MRI data of the aorta, simulated using the Lattice-Boltzmann method; in vivo 4D flow MRI data of the aorta from healthy volunteers (n = 11) and patients with congenital heart defects (n = 17).
FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 1.5T; 4D flow MRI with PEAK-GRAPPA acceleration and prospective electrocardiogram triggering.
ASSESSMENT: Predicated upon 3D cubic B-splines interpolation of the image velocity field, WSS was estimated in mid-systole, early-diastole, and late-diastole and OSI was derived. We assessed the impact of spatiotemporal resolution and phase noise, and compared results based on tracked-using deformable registration-and static vessel wall location.
STATISTICAL TESTS: Bland-Altman analysis to assess WSS/OSI differences; Hausdorff distance (HD) to assess wall motion; and Pearson's correlation coefficient (PCC) to assess correlation of HD with WSS.
RESULTS: Synthetic data results show systematic over-/underestimation of WSS when different spatial resolution (mean ± 1.96 SD up to -0.24 ± 0.40 N/m2 and 0.5 ± 1.38 N/m2 for 8-fold and 27-fold voxel size, respectively) and VENC-depending phase noise (mean ± 1.96 SD up to 0.31 ± 0.12 N/m2 and 0.94 ± 0.28 N/m2 for 2-fold and 4-fold VENC increase, respectively) are given. Neglecting wall motion when defining the vessel wall perturbs WSS estimates to a considerable extent (1.96 SD up to 1.21 N/m2 ) without systematic over-/underestimation (Bland-Altman mean range -0.06 to 0.05).
DATA CONCLUSION: In addition to sufficient spatial resolution and velocity to noise ratio, accurate tracking of the vessel wall is essential for reliable image-based WSS estimation and should not be neglected if wall motion is present.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018.
PURPOSE: To investigate the robustness of WSS and oscillatory shear index (OSI) estimation based on 4D flow MRI against vessel wall motion, spatiotemporal resolution, and velocity encoding (VENC).
STUDY TYPE: Simulated and prospective.
POPULATION: Synthetic 4D flow MRI data of the aorta, simulated using the Lattice-Boltzmann method; in vivo 4D flow MRI data of the aorta from healthy volunteers (n = 11) and patients with congenital heart defects (n = 17).
FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 1.5T; 4D flow MRI with PEAK-GRAPPA acceleration and prospective electrocardiogram triggering.
ASSESSMENT: Predicated upon 3D cubic B-splines interpolation of the image velocity field, WSS was estimated in mid-systole, early-diastole, and late-diastole and OSI was derived. We assessed the impact of spatiotemporal resolution and phase noise, and compared results based on tracked-using deformable registration-and static vessel wall location.
STATISTICAL TESTS: Bland-Altman analysis to assess WSS/OSI differences; Hausdorff distance (HD) to assess wall motion; and Pearson's correlation coefficient (PCC) to assess correlation of HD with WSS.
RESULTS: Synthetic data results show systematic over-/underestimation of WSS when different spatial resolution (mean ± 1.96 SD up to -0.24 ± 0.40 N/m2 and 0.5 ± 1.38 N/m2 for 8-fold and 27-fold voxel size, respectively) and VENC-depending phase noise (mean ± 1.96 SD up to 0.31 ± 0.12 N/m2 and 0.94 ± 0.28 N/m2 for 2-fold and 4-fold VENC increase, respectively) are given. Neglecting wall motion when defining the vessel wall perturbs WSS estimates to a considerable extent (1.96 SD up to 1.21 N/m2 ) without systematic over-/underestimation (Bland-Altman mean range -0.06 to 0.05).
DATA CONCLUSION: In addition to sufficient spatial resolution and velocity to noise ratio, accurate tracking of the vessel wall is essential for reliable image-based WSS estimation and should not be neglected if wall motion is present.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app