The clinical impact of phase offset errors and different correction methods in cardiovascular magnetic resonance phase contrast imaging: a multi-scanner study

Background: Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) phase contrast (PC) flow measurements suffer from phase offset errors. Background subtraction based on stationary phantom measurements can most reliably be used to overcome this inaccuracy. Stationary tissue correction is an alternative and does not require additional phantom scanning. The aim of this study was 1) to compare measurements with and without stationary tissue correction to phantom corrected measurements on different GE Healthcare CMR scanners using different software packages and 2) to evaluate the clinical implications of these methods. Methods: CMR PC imaging of both the aortic and pulmonary artery flow was performed in patients on three different 1.5 T CMR scanners (GE Healthcare) using identical scan parameters. Uncorrected, first, second and third order stationary tissue corrected flow measurement were compared to phantom corrected flow measurements, our reference method, using Medis QFlow, Circle cvi42 and MASS software. The optimal (optimized) stationary tissue order was determined per scanner and software program. Velo

Reference ranges ("normal values") for cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) in adults and children: 2020 update

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) enables assessment and quantification of morphological and functional parameters of the heart, including chamber size and function, diameters of the aorta and pulmonary arteries, flow and myocardial relaxation times. Knowledge of reference ranges ("normal values") for quantitative CMR is crucial to interpretation of results and to distinguish normal from disease. Compared to the previous version of this review published in 2015, we present updated and expanded reference values for morphological and functional CMR parameters of the cardiovascular system based on the peer-reviewed literature and current CMR techniques. Further, databases and references for deep learning methods are included

Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging analysis in STEMI: quantitative or still visual?

Cardiovascular Aspects of Radiolog

Bramwell-Hill modeling for local aortic pulse wave velocity estimation: a validation study with velocity-encoded cardiovascular magnetic resonance and invasive pressure assessment

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The Bramwell-Hill model describes the relation between vascular wall stiffness expressed in aortic distensibility and the pulse wave velocity (PWV), which is the propagation speed of the systolic pressure wave through the aorta. The main objective of this study was to test the validity of this model locally in the aorta by using PWV-assessments based on in-plane velocity-encoded cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR), with invasive pressure measurements serving as the gold standard.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Seventeen patients (14 male, 3 female, mean age ± standard deviation = 57 ± 9 years) awaiting cardiac catheterization were prospectively included. During catheterization, intra-arterial pressure measurements were obtained in the aorta at multiple locations 5.8 cm apart. PWV was determined regionally over the aortic arch and locally in the proximal descending aorta. Subsequently, patients underwent a CMR examination to measure aortic PWV and aortic distention. Distensibility was determined locally from the aortic distension at the proximal descending aorta and the pulse pressure measured invasively during catheterization and non-invasively from brachial cuff-assessment. PWV was determined regionally in the aortic arch using through-plane and in-plane velocity-encoded CMR, and locally at the proximal descending aorta using in-plane velocity-encoded CMR. Validity of the Bramwell-Hill model was tested by evaluating associations between distensibility and PWV. Also, theoretical PWV was calculated from distensibility measurements and compared with pressure-assessed PWV.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In-plane velocity-encoded CMR provides stronger correlation (p = 0.02) between CMR and pressure-assessed PWV than through-plane velocity-encoded CMR (r = 0.69 versus r = 0.26), with a non-significant mean error of 0.2 ± 1.6 m/s for in-plane versus a significant (p = 0.006) error of 1.3 ± 1.7 m/s for through-plane velocity-encoded CMR. The Bramwell-Hill model shows a significantly (p = 0.01) stronger association between distensibility and PWV for local assessment (r = 0.8) than for regional assessment (r = 0.7), both for CMR and for pressure-assessed PWV. Theoretical PWV is strongly correlated (r = 0.8) with pressure-assessed PWV, with a statistically significant (p = 0.04) mean underestimation of 0.6 ± 1.1 m/s. This theoretical PWV-estimation is more accurate when invasively-assessed pulse pressure is used instead of brachial cuff-assessment (p = 0.03).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>CMR with in-plane velocity-encoding is the optimal approach for studying Bramwell-Hill associations between local PWV and aortic distensibility. This approach enables non-invasive estimation of local pulse pressure and distensibility.</p

Assessment of left ventricular function: visual or quantitative?

Cardiovascular Aspects of Radiolog

A dual propagation contours technique for semi-automated assessment of systolic and diastolic cardiac function by CMR

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Although cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is frequently performed to measure accurate LV volumes and ejection fractions, LV volume-time curves (VTC) derived ejection and filling rates are not routinely calculated due to lack of robust LV segmentation techniques. VTC derived peak filling rates can be used to accurately assess LV diastolic function, an important clinical parameter. We developed a novel geometry-independent dual-contour propagation technique, making use of LV endocardial contours manually drawn at end systole and end diastole, to compute VTC and measured LV ejection and filling rates in hypertensive patients and normal volunteers.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>39 normal volunteers and 49 hypertensive patients underwent CMR. LV contours were manually drawn on all time frames in 18 normal volunteers. The dual-contour propagation algorithm was used to propagate contours throughout the cardiac cycle. The results were compared to those obtained with single-contour propagation (using either end-diastolic or end-systolic contours) and commercially available software. We then used the dual-contour propagation technique to measure peak ejection rate (PER) and peak early diastolic and late diastolic filling rates (ePFR and aPFR) in all normal volunteers and hypertensive patients.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Compared to single-contour propagation methods and the commercial method, VTC by dual-contour propagation showed significantly better agreement with manually-derived VTC. Ejection and filling rates by dual-contour propagation agreed with manual (dual-contour – manual PER: -0.12 ± 0.08; ePFR: -0.07 ± 0.07; aPFR: 0.06 ± 0.03 EDV/s, all P = NS). However, the time for the manual method was ~4 hours per study versus ~7 minutes for dual-contour propagation. LV systolic function measured by LVEF and PER did not differ between normal volunteers and hypertensive patients. However, ePFR was lower in hypertensive patients vs. normal volunteers, while aPFR was higher, indicative of altered diastolic filling rates in hypertensive patients.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Dual-propagated contours can accurately measure both systolic and diastolic volumetric indices that can be applied in a routine clinical CMR environment. With dual-contour propagation, the user interaction that is routinely performed to measure LVEF is leveraged to obtain additional clinically relevant parameters.</p

Mitral regurgitation quantification by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) remains reproducible between software solutions

Background: The reproducibility of mitral regurgitation (MR) quantification by cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging using different software solutions remains unclear. This research aimed to investigate the reproducibility of MR quantification between two software solutions: MASS (version 2019 EXP, LUMC, Netherlands) and CAAS (version 5.2, Pie Medical Imaging). Methods: CMR data of 35 patients with MR (12 primary MR, 13 mitral valve repair/replacement, and ten secondary MR) was used. Four methods of MR volume quantification were studied, including two 4D-flow CMR methods (MRMVAV and MRJet) and two non-4D-flow techniques (MRStandard and MRLVRV). We conducted within-software and inter-software correlation and agreement analyses. Results: All methods demonstrated significant correlation between the two software solutions: MRStandard (r=0.92, p<0.001), MRLVRV (r=0.95, p<0.001), MRJet (r=0.86, p<0.001), and MRMVAV (r=0.91, p<0.001). Between CAAS and MASS, MRJet and MRMVAV, compared to each of the four methods, were the only methods not to be associated with significant bias. Conclusions: We conclude that 4D-flow CMR methods demonstrate equivalent reproducibility to non-4D-flow methods but greater levels of agreement between software solutions

Positron emission tomography; viable tool in patients pre-CABG?

Vascular Biology and Interventio

Mitral regurgitation quantification by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) remains reproducible between software solutions [version 2; peer review: 1 approved]

BACKGROUND: The reproducibility of mitral regurgitation (MR) quantification by cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging using different software solutions remains unclear. This research aimed to investigate the reproducibility of MR quantification between two software solutions: MASS (version 2019 EXP, LUMC, Netherlands) and CAAS (version 5.2, Pie Medical Imaging). METHODS: CMR data of 35 patients with MR (12 primary MR, 13 mitral valve repair/replacement, and ten secondary MR) was used. Four methods of MR volume quantification were studied, including two 4D-flow CMR methods (MRMVAV and MRJet) and two non-4D-flow techniques (MRStandard and MRLVRV). We conducted within-software and inter-software correlation and agreement analyses. RESULTS: All methods demonstrated significant correlation between the two software solutions: MR_{Standard} (r=0.92, p<0.001), MR_{LVRV} (r=0.95, p<0.001), MR_{Jet} (r=0.86, p<0.001), and MR_{MVAV} (r=0.91, p<0.001). Between CAAS and MASS, MR_{Jet} and MR_{MVAV}, compared to each of the four methods, were the only methods not to be associated with significant bias. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that 4D-flow CMR methods demonstrate equivalent reproducibility to non-4D-flow methods but greater levels of agreement between software solutions