Premium
Aortic 4D flow MRI in 2 minutes using compressed sensing, respiratory controlled adaptive k‐space reordering, and inline reconstruction
Author(s) -
Ma Liliana E.,
Markl Michael,
Chow Kelvin,
Huh Hyungkyu,
Forman Christoph,
Vali Alireza,
Greiser Andreas,
Carr James,
Schnell Susanne,
Barker Alex J.,
Jin Ning
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
magnetic resonance in medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.696
H-Index - 225
eISSN - 1522-2594
pISSN - 0740-3194
DOI - 10.1002/mrm.27684
Subject(s) - pulsatile flow , nuclear medicine , voxel , imaging phantom , compressed sensing , magnetic resonance imaging , thoracic aorta , aorta , medicine , biomedical engineering , scanner , nuclear magnetic resonance , mathematics , radiology , physics , cardiology , computer science , algorithm , artificial intelligence
Purpose To evaluate the accuracy and feasibility of a free‐breathing 4D flow technique using compressed sensing (CS), where 4D flow imaging of the thoracic aorta is performed in 2 min with inline image reconstruction on the MRI scanner in less than 5 min. Methods The 10 in vitro 4D flow MRI scans were performed with different acceleration rates on a pulsatile flow phantom (9 CS acceleration factors [R = 5.4–14.1], 1 generalized autocalibrating partially parallel acquisition [GRAPPA] R = 2). Based on in vitro results, CS‐accelerated 4D flow of the thoracic aorta was acquired in 20 healthy volunteers (38.3 ± 15.2 years old) and 11 patients with aortic disease (61.3 ± 15.1 years) with R = 7.7. A conventional 4D flow scan was acquired with matched spatial coverage and temporal resolution. Results CS depicted similar hemodynamics to conventional 4D flow in vitro, and in vivo, with >70% reduction in scan time (volunteers: 1:52 ± 0:25 versus 7:25 ± 2:35 min). Net flow values were within 3.5% in healthy volunteers, and voxel‐by‐voxel comparison demonstrated good agreement. CS significantly underestimated peak velocities (v max ) and peak flow (Q max ) in both volunteers and patients ( volunteers : v max , −16.2% to −9.4%, Q max : −11.6% to −2.9%, patients : v max , −11.2% to −4.0%; Q max , −10.2% to −5.8%). Conclusion Aortic 4D flow with CS is feasible in a two minute scan with less than 5 min for inline reconstruction. While net flow agreement was excellent, CS with R = 7.7 produced underestimation of Q max and v max ; however, these were generally within 13% of conventional 4D flow‐derived values. This approach allows 4D flow to be feasible in clinical practice for comprehensive assessment of hemodynamics.