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/

Zendy Plus

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

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

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.

In‐scan and scan–rescan assessment of LV in‐ and outflow volumes by 4D flow MRI versus 2D planimetry