English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

BackgroundUnderstanding hemodynamic environment in vessels is important for realizing the mechanisms leading to vascular pathologies.ObjectivesThree-dimensional velocity vector field in carotid bifurcation is visualized using TR 3D phase-contrast magnetic resonance imaging (TR 3D PC MRI) and computational fluid dynamics (CFD). This study aimed to present a qualitative and quantitative comparison of the velocity vector field obtained by each technique.Subjects and MethodsMR imaging was performed on a 30-year old male normal subject. TR 3D PC MRI was performed on a 3 T scanner to measure velocity in carotid bifurcation. 3D anatomical model for CFD was created using images obtained from time-of-flight MR angiography. Velocity vector field in carotid bifurcation was predicted using CFD and PC MRI techniques. A statistical analysis was performed to assess the agreement between the two methods.ResultsAlthough the main flow patterns were the same for the both techniques, CFD showed a greater resolution in mapping the secondary and circulating flows. Overall root mean square (RMS) errors for all the corresponding data points in PC MRI and CFD were 14.27% in peak systole and 12.91% in end diastole relative to maximum velocity measured at each cardiac phase. Bland-Altman plots showed a very good agreement between the two techniques. However, this study was not aimed to validate any of methods, instead, the consistency was assessed to accentuate the similarities and differences between Time-resolved PC MRI and CFD.ConclusionBoth techniques provided quantitatively consistent results of in vivo velocity vector fields in right internal carotid artery (RCA). PC MRI represented a good estimation of main flow patterns inside the vasculature, which seems to be acceptable for clinical use. However, limitations of each technique should be considered while interpreting results

Velocity Measurement in Carotid Artery: Quantitative Comparison of Time-Resolved 3D Phase-Contrast MRI and Image-based Computational Fluid Dynamics