Three dimensional three component whole heart cardiovascular magnetic resonance velocity mapping: comparison of flow measurements from 3D and 2D acquisitions

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Two-dimensional, unidirectionally encoded, cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) velocity mapping is an established technique for the quantification of blood flow in large vessels. However, it requires an operator to correctly align the planes of acquisition. If all three directional components of velocity are measured for each voxel of a 3D volume through the phases of the cardiac cycle, blood flow through any chosen plane can potentially be calculated retrospectively. The initial acquisition is then more time consuming but relatively operator independent.</p> <p>Aims</p> <p>To compare the curves and volumes of flow derived from conventional 2D and comprehensive 3D flow acquisitions in a steady state flow model, and in vivo through planes transecting the ascending aorta and pulmonary trunk in 10 healthy volunteers.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using a 1.5 T Phillips Intera CMR system, 3D acquisitions used an anisotropic 3D segmented k-space phase contrast gradient echo sequence with a short EPI readout, with prospective ECG and diaphragm navigator gating. The 2D acquisitions used segmented k-space phase contrast with prospective ECG and diaphragm navigator gating. Quantitative flow analyses were performed retrospectively with dedicated software for both the in vivo and in vitro acquisitions.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Analysis of in vitro data found the 3D technique to have overestimated the continuous flow rate by approximately 5% across the entire applied flow range. In vivo, the 2D and the 3D techniques yielded similar volumetric flow curves and measurements. Aortic flow: (mean ± SD), 2D = 89.5 ± 13.5 ml & 3D = 92.7 ± 17.5 ml. Pulmonary flow: 2D = 98.8 ± 18.4 ml & 3D = 94.9 ± 19.0 ml). Each in vivo 3D acquisition took about 8 minutes or more.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Flow measurements derived from the 3D and 2D acquisitions were comparable. Although time consuming, comprehensive 3D velocity acquisition could be relatively operator independent, and could potentially yield information on flow through several retrospectively chosen planes, for example in patients with congenital or valvular heart disease.</p

Heart valve disease: investigation by cardiovascular magnetic resonance

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) has become a valuable investigative tool in many areas of cardiac medicine. Its value in heart valve disease is less well appreciated however, particularly as echocardiography is a powerful and widely available technique in valve disease. This review highlights the added value that CMR can bring in valve disease, complementing echocardiography in many areas, but it has also become the first-line investigation in some, such as pulmonary valve disease and assessing the right ventricle. CMR has many advantages, including the ability to image in any plane, which allows full visualisation of valves and their inflow/outflow tracts, direct measurement of valve area (particularly for stenotic valves), and characterisation of the associated great vessel anatomy (e.g. the aortic root and arch in aortic valve disease). A particular strength is the ability to quantify flow, which allows accurate measurement of regurgitation, cardiac shunt volumes/ratios and differential flow volumes (e.g. left and right pulmonary arteries). Quantification of ventricular volumes and mass is vital for determining the impact of valve disease on the heart, and CMR is the 'Gold standard' for this. Limitations of the technique include partial volume effects due to image slice thickness, and a low ability to identify small, highly mobile objects (such as vegetations) due to the need to acquire images over several cardiac cycles. The review examines the advantages and disadvantages of each imaging aspect in detail, and considers how CMR can be used optimally for each valve lesion