The clinical impact of phase offset errors and different correction methods in cardiovascular magnetic resonance phase contrast imaging: a multi-scanner study
Abstract 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...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Elsevier
2020-09-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12968-020-00659-3 |
| _version_ | 1797204238678360064 |
|---|---|
| author | Savine C. S. Minderhoud Nikki van der Velde Jolanda J. Wentzel Rob J. van der Geest Mohammed Attrach Piotr A. Wielopolski Ricardo P. J. Budde Willem A. Helbing Jolien W. Roos-Hesselink Alexander Hirsch |
| author_facet | Savine C. S. Minderhoud Nikki van der Velde Jolanda J. Wentzel Rob J. van der Geest Mohammed Attrach Piotr A. Wielopolski Ricardo P. J. Budde Willem A. Helbing Jolien W. Roos-Hesselink Alexander Hirsch |
| author_sort | Savine C. S. Minderhoud |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract 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. Velocity offsets, net flow, clinically significant difference (deviation > 10% net flow), and regurgitation severity were assessed. Results Data from 175 patients (28 (17–38) years) were included, of which 84% had congenital heart disease. First, second and third order and optimized stationary tissue correction did not improve the velocity offsets and net flow measurements. Uncorrected measurements resulted in the least clinically significant differences in net flow compared to phantom corrected data. Optimized stationary tissue correction per scanner and software program resulted in net flow differences (> 10%) in 19% (MASS) and 30% (Circle cvi42) of all measurements compared to 18% (MASS) and 23% (Circle cvi42) with no correction. Compared to phantom correction, regurgitation reclassification was the least common using uncorrected data. One CMR scanner performed worse and significant net flow differences of > 10% were present both with and without stationary tissue correction in more than 30% of all measurements. Conclusion Phase offset errors had a significant impact on net flow quantification, regurgitation assessment and varied greatly between CMR scanners. Background phase correction using stationary tissue correction worsened accuracy compared to no correction on three GE Healthcare CMR scanners. Therefore, careful assessment of phase offset errors at each individual scanner is essential to determine whether routine use of phantom correction is necessary. Trial registration Observational Study |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-13T13:32:15Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-26ef4b28a19c438eb8ab73d03c5ff73e |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1532-429X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-24T08:32:03Z |
| publishDate | 2020-09-01 |
| publisher | Elsevier |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance |
| spelling | doaj.art-26ef4b28a19c438eb8ab73d03c5ff73e2024-04-16T19:15:54ZengElsevierJournal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance1532-429X2020-09-0122111310.1186/s12968-020-00659-3The clinical impact of phase offset errors and different correction methods in cardiovascular magnetic resonance phase contrast imaging: a multi-scanner studySavine C. S. Minderhoud0Nikki van der Velde1Jolanda J. Wentzel2Rob J. van der Geest3Mohammed Attrach4Piotr A. Wielopolski5Ricardo P. J. Budde6Willem A. Helbing7Jolien W. Roos-Hesselink8Alexander Hirsch9Department of Cardiology, Erasmus Medical Center, University Medical Center RotterdamDepartment of Cardiology, Erasmus Medical Center, University Medical Center RotterdamDepartment of Cardiology, Erasmus Medical Center, University Medical Center RotterdamDepartment of Radiology, Division of Image Processing, Leiden University Medical CenterDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus Medical Center, University Medical Center RotterdamDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus Medical Center, University Medical Center RotterdamDepartment of Cardiology, Erasmus Medical Center, University Medical Center RotterdamDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus Medical Center, University Medical Center RotterdamDepartment of Cardiology, Erasmus Medical Center, University Medical Center RotterdamDepartment of Cardiology, Erasmus Medical Center, University Medical Center RotterdamAbstract 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. Velocity offsets, net flow, clinically significant difference (deviation > 10% net flow), and regurgitation severity were assessed. Results Data from 175 patients (28 (17–38) years) were included, of which 84% had congenital heart disease. First, second and third order and optimized stationary tissue correction did not improve the velocity offsets and net flow measurements. Uncorrected measurements resulted in the least clinically significant differences in net flow compared to phantom corrected data. Optimized stationary tissue correction per scanner and software program resulted in net flow differences (> 10%) in 19% (MASS) and 30% (Circle cvi42) of all measurements compared to 18% (MASS) and 23% (Circle cvi42) with no correction. Compared to phantom correction, regurgitation reclassification was the least common using uncorrected data. One CMR scanner performed worse and significant net flow differences of > 10% were present both with and without stationary tissue correction in more than 30% of all measurements. Conclusion Phase offset errors had a significant impact on net flow quantification, regurgitation assessment and varied greatly between CMR scanners. Background phase correction using stationary tissue correction worsened accuracy compared to no correction on three GE Healthcare CMR scanners. Therefore, careful assessment of phase offset errors at each individual scanner is essential to determine whether routine use of phantom correction is necessary. Trial registration Observational Studyhttp://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12968-020-00659-3Flow quantificationCardiovascular magnetic resonance imagingPhase contrast velocity imagingPhase offset error |
| spellingShingle | Savine C. S. Minderhoud Nikki van der Velde Jolanda J. Wentzel Rob J. van der Geest Mohammed Attrach Piotr A. Wielopolski Ricardo P. J. Budde Willem A. Helbing Jolien W. Roos-Hesselink Alexander Hirsch The clinical impact of phase offset errors and different correction methods in cardiovascular magnetic resonance phase contrast imaging: a multi-scanner study Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Flow quantification Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging Phase contrast velocity imaging Phase offset error |
| title | The clinical impact of phase offset errors and different correction methods in cardiovascular magnetic resonance phase contrast imaging: a multi-scanner study |
| title_full | The clinical impact of phase offset errors and different correction methods in cardiovascular magnetic resonance phase contrast imaging: a multi-scanner study |
| title_fullStr | The clinical impact of phase offset errors and different correction methods in cardiovascular magnetic resonance phase contrast imaging: a multi-scanner study |
| title_full_unstemmed | The clinical impact of phase offset errors and different correction methods in cardiovascular magnetic resonance phase contrast imaging: a multi-scanner study |
| title_short | The clinical impact of phase offset errors and different correction methods in cardiovascular magnetic resonance phase contrast imaging: a multi-scanner study |
| title_sort | clinical impact of phase offset errors and different correction methods in cardiovascular magnetic resonance phase contrast imaging a multi scanner study |
| topic | Flow quantification Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging Phase contrast velocity imaging Phase offset error |
| url | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12968-020-00659-3 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT savinecsminderhoud theclinicalimpactofphaseoffseterrorsanddifferentcorrectionmethodsincardiovascularmagneticresonancephasecontrastimagingamultiscannerstudy AT nikkivandervelde theclinicalimpactofphaseoffseterrorsanddifferentcorrectionmethodsincardiovascularmagneticresonancephasecontrastimagingamultiscannerstudy AT jolandajwentzel theclinicalimpactofphaseoffseterrorsanddifferentcorrectionmethodsincardiovascularmagneticresonancephasecontrastimagingamultiscannerstudy AT robjvandergeest theclinicalimpactofphaseoffseterrorsanddifferentcorrectionmethodsincardiovascularmagneticresonancephasecontrastimagingamultiscannerstudy AT mohammedattrach theclinicalimpactofphaseoffseterrorsanddifferentcorrectionmethodsincardiovascularmagneticresonancephasecontrastimagingamultiscannerstudy AT piotrawielopolski theclinicalimpactofphaseoffseterrorsanddifferentcorrectionmethodsincardiovascularmagneticresonancephasecontrastimagingamultiscannerstudy AT ricardopjbudde theclinicalimpactofphaseoffseterrorsanddifferentcorrectionmethodsincardiovascularmagneticresonancephasecontrastimagingamultiscannerstudy AT willemahelbing theclinicalimpactofphaseoffseterrorsanddifferentcorrectionmethodsincardiovascularmagneticresonancephasecontrastimagingamultiscannerstudy AT jolienwrooshesselink theclinicalimpactofphaseoffseterrorsanddifferentcorrectionmethodsincardiovascularmagneticresonancephasecontrastimagingamultiscannerstudy AT alexanderhirsch theclinicalimpactofphaseoffseterrorsanddifferentcorrectionmethodsincardiovascularmagneticresonancephasecontrastimagingamultiscannerstudy AT savinecsminderhoud clinicalimpactofphaseoffseterrorsanddifferentcorrectionmethodsincardiovascularmagneticresonancephasecontrastimagingamultiscannerstudy AT nikkivandervelde clinicalimpactofphaseoffseterrorsanddifferentcorrectionmethodsincardiovascularmagneticresonancephasecontrastimagingamultiscannerstudy AT jolandajwentzel clinicalimpactofphaseoffseterrorsanddifferentcorrectionmethodsincardiovascularmagneticresonancephasecontrastimagingamultiscannerstudy AT robjvandergeest clinicalimpactofphaseoffseterrorsanddifferentcorrectionmethodsincardiovascularmagneticresonancephasecontrastimagingamultiscannerstudy AT mohammedattrach clinicalimpactofphaseoffseterrorsanddifferentcorrectionmethodsincardiovascularmagneticresonancephasecontrastimagingamultiscannerstudy AT piotrawielopolski clinicalimpactofphaseoffseterrorsanddifferentcorrectionmethodsincardiovascularmagneticresonancephasecontrastimagingamultiscannerstudy AT ricardopjbudde clinicalimpactofphaseoffseterrorsanddifferentcorrectionmethodsincardiovascularmagneticresonancephasecontrastimagingamultiscannerstudy AT willemahelbing clinicalimpactofphaseoffseterrorsanddifferentcorrectionmethodsincardiovascularmagneticresonancephasecontrastimagingamultiscannerstudy AT jolienwrooshesselink clinicalimpactofphaseoffseterrorsanddifferentcorrectionmethodsincardiovascularmagneticresonancephasecontrastimagingamultiscannerstudy AT alexanderhirsch clinicalimpactofphaseoffseterrorsanddifferentcorrectionmethodsincardiovascularmagneticresonancephasecontrastimagingamultiscannerstudy |