Premium
Wall shear stress estimation in the aorta: Impact of wall motion, spatiotemporal resolution, and phase noise
Author(s) -
Zimmermann Judith,
Demedts Daniel,
Mirzaee Hanieh,
Ewert Peter,
Stern Heiko,
Meierhofer Christian,
Menze Bjoern,
Hennemuth Anja
Publication year - 2018
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.26007
Subject(s) - shear stress , aorta , diastole , blood flow , mathematics , medicine , biomedical engineering , materials science , physics , cardiology , mechanics , blood pressure
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/m 2 and 0.5 ± 1.38 N/m 2 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/m 2 and 0.94 ± 0.28 N/m 2 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/m 2 ) 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;48:718–728.