Premium
Improved aortic pulse wave velocity assessment from multislice two‐directional in‐plane velocity‐encoded magnetic resonance imaging
Author(s) -
Westenberg Jos J.M.,
de Roos Albert,
Grotenhuis Heynric B.,
Steendijk Paul,
Hendriksen Dennis,
van den Boogaard Pieter J.,
van der Geest Rob J.,
Bax Jeroen J.,
Jukema J. Wouter,
Reiber Johan H.C.
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
journal of magnetic resonance imaging
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.563
H-Index - 160
eISSN - 1522-2586
pISSN - 1053-1807
DOI - 10.1002/jmri.22359
Subject(s) - pulse wave velocity , medicine , reproducibility , magnetic resonance imaging , cardiology , multislice , aorta , coefficient of variation , gold standard (test) , blood pressure , nuclear medicine , nuclear magnetic resonance , radiology , mathematics , physics , statistics
Purpose To evaluate the accuracy and reproducibility of aortic pulse wave velocity (PWV) assessment by in‐plane velocity‐encoded magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Materials and Methods In 14 patients selected for cardiac catheterization on suspicion of coronary artery disease and 15 healthy volunteers, PWV was assessed with multislice two‐directional in‐plane velocity‐encoded MRI (PWV i.p. ) and compared with conventionally assessed PWV from multisite one‐directional through‐plane velocity‐encoded MRI (PWV t.p. ). In patients, PWV was also obtained from intraarterially acquired pressure–time curves (PWV pressure ), which is considered the gold standard reference method. In volunteers, PWV i.p. and PWV t.p. were obtained in duplicate in the same examination to test reproducibility. Results In patients, PWV i.p. showed stronger correlation and similar variation with PWV pressure than PWV t.p. (Pearson correlation r = 0.75 vs. r = 0.58, and coefficient of variation [COV] = 10% vs. COV = 12%, respectively). In volunteers, repeated PWV i.p. assessment showed stronger correlation and less variation than repeated PWV t.p. (proximal aorta: r = 0.97 and COV = 10% vs. r = 0.69 and COV = 17%; distal aorta: r = 0.94 and COV = 12% vs. r = 0.90 and COV = 16%; total aorta: r = 0.97 and COV = 7% vs. r = 0.90 and COV = 13%). Conclusion PWV i.p. is an improvement over conventional PWV t.p. by showing higher agreement as compared to the gold standard (PWV pressure ) and higher reproducibility for repeated MRI assessment. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2010;32:1086–1094. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.