In-vivo validation of interpolation-based phase offset correction in cardiovascular magnetic resonance flow quantification: a multi-vendor, multi-center study
Abstract Background A velocity offset error in phase contrast cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging is a known problem in clinical assessment of flow volumes in vessels around the heart. Earlier studies have shown that this offset error is clinically relevant over different systems, and ca...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Elsevier
2019-05-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12968-019-0538-3 |
| _version_ | 1797204423634583552 |
|---|---|
| author | Mark B. M. Hofman Manouk J. A. Rodenburg Karin Markenroth Bloch Beat Werner Jos J. M. Westenberg Emanuela R. Valsangiacomo Buechel Robin Nijveldt Onno A. Spruijt Philip J. Kilner Albert C. van Rossum Peter D. Gatehouse |
| author_facet | Mark B. M. Hofman Manouk J. A. Rodenburg Karin Markenroth Bloch Beat Werner Jos J. M. Westenberg Emanuela R. Valsangiacomo Buechel Robin Nijveldt Onno A. Spruijt Philip J. Kilner Albert C. van Rossum Peter D. Gatehouse |
| author_sort | Mark B. M. Hofman |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background A velocity offset error in phase contrast cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging is a known problem in clinical assessment of flow volumes in vessels around the heart. Earlier studies have shown that this offset error is clinically relevant over different systems, and cannot be removed by protocol optimization. Correction methods using phantom measurements are time consuming, and assume reproducibility of the offsets which is not the case for all systems. An alternative previously published solution is to correct the in-vivo data in post-processing, interpolating the velocity offset from stationary tissue within the field-of-view. This study aims to validate this interpolation-based offset correction in-vivo in a multi-vendor, multi-center setup. Methods Data from six 1.5 T CMR systems were evaluated, with two systems from each of the three main vendors. At each system aortic and main pulmonary artery 2D flow studies were acquired during routine clinical or research examinations, with an additional phantom measurement using identical acquisition parameters. To verify the phantom acquisition, a region-of-interest (ROI) at stationary tissue in the thorax wall was placed and compared between in-vivo and phantom measurements. Interpolation-based offset correction was performed on the in-vivo data, after manually excluding regions of spatial wraparound. Correction performance of different spatial orders of interpolation planes was evaluated. Results A total of 126 flow measurements in 82 subjects were included. At the thorax wall the agreement between in-vivo and phantom was − 0.2 ± 0.6 cm/s. Twenty-eight studies were excluded because of a difference at the thorax wall exceeding 0.6 cm/s from the phantom scan, leaving 98. Before correction, the offset at the vessel as assessed in the phantom was − 0.4 ± 1.5 cm/s, which resulted in a − 5 ± 16% error in cardiac output. The optimal order of the interpolation correction plane was 1st order, except for one system at which a 2nd order plane was required. Application of the interpolation-based correction revealed a remaining offset velocity of 0.1 ± 0.5 cm/s and 0 ± 5% error in cardiac output. Conclusions This study shows that interpolation-based offset correction reduces the offset with comparable efficacy as phantom measurement phase offset correction, without the time penalty imposed by phantom scans. Trial registration The study was registered in The Netherlands National Trial Register (NTR) under TC 4865. Registered 19 September 2014. Retrospectively registered. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-24T08:35:00Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-d9bd7df6f629428bb7a458abc3700c4b |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1532-429X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-24T08:35:00Z |
| publishDate | 2019-05-01 |
| publisher | Elsevier |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance |
| spelling | doaj.art-d9bd7df6f629428bb7a458abc3700c4b2024-04-16T18:06:12ZengElsevierJournal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance1532-429X2019-05-0121111310.1186/s12968-019-0538-3In-vivo validation of interpolation-based phase offset correction in cardiovascular magnetic resonance flow quantification: a multi-vendor, multi-center studyMark B. M. Hofman0Manouk J. A. Rodenburg1Karin Markenroth Bloch2Beat Werner3Jos J. M. Westenberg4Emanuela R. Valsangiacomo Buechel5Robin Nijveldt6Onno A. Spruijt7Philip J. Kilner8Albert C. van Rossum9Peter D. Gatehouse10Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, ICaR-VU, VU University Medical CenterRadiology and Nuclear Medicine, ICaR-VU, VU University Medical CenterLund University Bioimaging Center, Lund UniversityDepartment Diagnostic Imaging, University Children’s HospitalRadiology, Leiden University Medical CenterDivision of Cardiology, University Children’s HospitalCardiology, ICaR-VU, VU University Medical CenterPulmonology, ICaR-VU, VU University Medical CenterCardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Unit, Royal Brompton HospitalCardiology, ICaR-VU, VU University Medical CenterCardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Unit, Royal Brompton HospitalAbstract Background A velocity offset error in phase contrast cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging is a known problem in clinical assessment of flow volumes in vessels around the heart. Earlier studies have shown that this offset error is clinically relevant over different systems, and cannot be removed by protocol optimization. Correction methods using phantom measurements are time consuming, and assume reproducibility of the offsets which is not the case for all systems. An alternative previously published solution is to correct the in-vivo data in post-processing, interpolating the velocity offset from stationary tissue within the field-of-view. This study aims to validate this interpolation-based offset correction in-vivo in a multi-vendor, multi-center setup. Methods Data from six 1.5 T CMR systems were evaluated, with two systems from each of the three main vendors. At each system aortic and main pulmonary artery 2D flow studies were acquired during routine clinical or research examinations, with an additional phantom measurement using identical acquisition parameters. To verify the phantom acquisition, a region-of-interest (ROI) at stationary tissue in the thorax wall was placed and compared between in-vivo and phantom measurements. Interpolation-based offset correction was performed on the in-vivo data, after manually excluding regions of spatial wraparound. Correction performance of different spatial orders of interpolation planes was evaluated. Results A total of 126 flow measurements in 82 subjects were included. At the thorax wall the agreement between in-vivo and phantom was − 0.2 ± 0.6 cm/s. Twenty-eight studies were excluded because of a difference at the thorax wall exceeding 0.6 cm/s from the phantom scan, leaving 98. Before correction, the offset at the vessel as assessed in the phantom was − 0.4 ± 1.5 cm/s, which resulted in a − 5 ± 16% error in cardiac output. The optimal order of the interpolation correction plane was 1st order, except for one system at which a 2nd order plane was required. Application of the interpolation-based correction revealed a remaining offset velocity of 0.1 ± 0.5 cm/s and 0 ± 5% error in cardiac output. Conclusions This study shows that interpolation-based offset correction reduces the offset with comparable efficacy as phantom measurement phase offset correction, without the time penalty imposed by phantom scans. Trial registration The study was registered in The Netherlands National Trial Register (NTR) under TC 4865. Registered 19 September 2014. Retrospectively registered.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12968-019-0538-3Flow quantificationVelocity offsetCardiac outputPhase contrast velocity mappingAortaMain pulmonary artery |
| spellingShingle | Mark B. M. Hofman Manouk J. A. Rodenburg Karin Markenroth Bloch Beat Werner Jos J. M. Westenberg Emanuela R. Valsangiacomo Buechel Robin Nijveldt Onno A. Spruijt Philip J. Kilner Albert C. van Rossum Peter D. Gatehouse In-vivo validation of interpolation-based phase offset correction in cardiovascular magnetic resonance flow quantification: a multi-vendor, multi-center study Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Flow quantification Velocity offset Cardiac output Phase contrast velocity mapping Aorta Main pulmonary artery |
| title | In-vivo validation of interpolation-based phase offset correction in cardiovascular magnetic resonance flow quantification: a multi-vendor, multi-center study |
| title_full | In-vivo validation of interpolation-based phase offset correction in cardiovascular magnetic resonance flow quantification: a multi-vendor, multi-center study |
| title_fullStr | In-vivo validation of interpolation-based phase offset correction in cardiovascular magnetic resonance flow quantification: a multi-vendor, multi-center study |
| title_full_unstemmed | In-vivo validation of interpolation-based phase offset correction in cardiovascular magnetic resonance flow quantification: a multi-vendor, multi-center study |
| title_short | In-vivo validation of interpolation-based phase offset correction in cardiovascular magnetic resonance flow quantification: a multi-vendor, multi-center study |
| title_sort | in vivo validation of interpolation based phase offset correction in cardiovascular magnetic resonance flow quantification a multi vendor multi center study |
| topic | Flow quantification Velocity offset Cardiac output Phase contrast velocity mapping Aorta Main pulmonary artery |
| url | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12968-019-0538-3 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT markbmhofman invivovalidationofinterpolationbasedphaseoffsetcorrectionincardiovascularmagneticresonanceflowquantificationamultivendormulticenterstudy AT manoukjarodenburg invivovalidationofinterpolationbasedphaseoffsetcorrectionincardiovascularmagneticresonanceflowquantificationamultivendormulticenterstudy AT karinmarkenrothbloch invivovalidationofinterpolationbasedphaseoffsetcorrectionincardiovascularmagneticresonanceflowquantificationamultivendormulticenterstudy AT beatwerner invivovalidationofinterpolationbasedphaseoffsetcorrectionincardiovascularmagneticresonanceflowquantificationamultivendormulticenterstudy AT josjmwestenberg invivovalidationofinterpolationbasedphaseoffsetcorrectionincardiovascularmagneticresonanceflowquantificationamultivendormulticenterstudy AT emanuelarvalsangiacomobuechel invivovalidationofinterpolationbasedphaseoffsetcorrectionincardiovascularmagneticresonanceflowquantificationamultivendormulticenterstudy AT robinnijveldt invivovalidationofinterpolationbasedphaseoffsetcorrectionincardiovascularmagneticresonanceflowquantificationamultivendormulticenterstudy AT onnoaspruijt invivovalidationofinterpolationbasedphaseoffsetcorrectionincardiovascularmagneticresonanceflowquantificationamultivendormulticenterstudy AT philipjkilner invivovalidationofinterpolationbasedphaseoffsetcorrectionincardiovascularmagneticresonanceflowquantificationamultivendormulticenterstudy AT albertcvanrossum invivovalidationofinterpolationbasedphaseoffsetcorrectionincardiovascularmagneticresonanceflowquantificationamultivendormulticenterstudy AT peterdgatehouse invivovalidationofinterpolationbasedphaseoffsetcorrectionincardiovascularmagneticresonanceflowquantificationamultivendormulticenterstudy |