Carotid Phase-Contrast Magnetic Resonance before Treatment: 4D-Flow versus Standard 2D Imaging
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the level of agreement between flow/velocity data obtained from 2D-phase-contrast (PC) and 4D-flow in patients scheduled for treatment of carotid artery stenosis. Image acquisition was performed using a 1.5 T scanner. We compared mean flow rates, vessel area...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2021-09-01
|
| Series: | Tomography |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2379-139X/7/4/44 |
| _version_ | 1827669379346595840 |
|---|---|
| author | Francesco Secchi Caterina Beatrice Monti Davide Capra Renato Vitale Daniela Mazzaccaro Michele Conti Ning Jin Daniel Giese Giovanni Nano Francesco Sardanelli Massimiliano M. Marrocco-Trischitta |
| author_facet | Francesco Secchi Caterina Beatrice Monti Davide Capra Renato Vitale Daniela Mazzaccaro Michele Conti Ning Jin Daniel Giese Giovanni Nano Francesco Sardanelli Massimiliano M. Marrocco-Trischitta |
| author_sort | Francesco Secchi |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The purpose of this study was to evaluate the level of agreement between flow/velocity data obtained from 2D-phase-contrast (PC) and 4D-flow in patients scheduled for treatment of carotid artery stenosis. Image acquisition was performed using a 1.5 T scanner. We compared mean flow rates, vessel areas, and peak velocities obtained during the acquisition with both techniques in 20 consecutive patients, 15 males and 5 females aged 69 ± 5 years (mean ± standard deviation). There was a good correlation between both techniques for the CCA flow (<i>r</i> = 0.65, <i>p</i> < 0.001), whereas for the ICA flow and ECA flow the correlation was only moderate (<i>r</i> = 0.4, <i>p</i> = 0.011 and <i>r</i> = 0.45, <i>p</i> = 0.003, respectively). Correlations of peak velocities between methods were good for CCA (<i>r</i> = 0.56, <i>p</i> < 0.001) and moderate for ECA (<i>r</i> = 0.41, <i>p</i> = 0.008). There was no correlation for ICA (<i>r</i> = 0.04, <i>p</i> = 0.805). Cross-sectional area values between methods showed no significant correlations for CCA (<i>r</i> = 0.18, <i>p</i> = 0.269), ICA (<i>r</i> = 0.1, <i>p</i> = 0.543), and ECA (<i>r</i> = 0.05, <i>p</i> = 0.767). Conclusion: the 4D-flow imaging provided a good correlation of CCA and a moderate correlation of ICA flow rates against 2D-PC, underestimating peak velocities and overestimating cross-sectional areas in all carotid segments. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-10T03:59:34Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-fd35df0f474b4b569c807fa5073de05d |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2379-1381 2379-139X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-10T03:59:34Z |
| publishDate | 2021-09-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Tomography |
| spelling | doaj.art-fd35df0f474b4b569c807fa5073de05d2023-11-23T10:48:53ZengMDPI AGTomography2379-13812379-139X2021-09-017451352210.3390/tomography7040044Carotid Phase-Contrast Magnetic Resonance before Treatment: 4D-Flow versus Standard 2D ImagingFrancesco Secchi0Caterina Beatrice Monti1Davide Capra2Renato Vitale3Daniela Mazzaccaro4Michele Conti5Ning Jin6Daniel Giese7Giovanni Nano8Francesco Sardanelli9Massimiliano M. Marrocco-Trischitta10Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, 20100 Milan, ItalyDepartment of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, 20100 Milan, ItalyDepartment of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, 20100 Milan, ItalyDepartment of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, 20100 Milan, ItalyUnit of Vascular Surgery, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, 20097 San Donato Milanese, ItalyDepartment of Civil Engineering and Architecture, University of Pavia, 27100 Pavia, ItalySiemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc., Malvern, PA 19355, USAMagnetic Resonance, Siemens Healthcare GmbH, 91052 Erlangen, GermanyDepartment of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, 20100 Milan, ItalyDepartment of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, 20100 Milan, ItalyUnit of Vascular Surgery, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, 20097 San Donato Milanese, ItalyThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the level of agreement between flow/velocity data obtained from 2D-phase-contrast (PC) and 4D-flow in patients scheduled for treatment of carotid artery stenosis. Image acquisition was performed using a 1.5 T scanner. We compared mean flow rates, vessel areas, and peak velocities obtained during the acquisition with both techniques in 20 consecutive patients, 15 males and 5 females aged 69 ± 5 years (mean ± standard deviation). There was a good correlation between both techniques for the CCA flow (<i>r</i> = 0.65, <i>p</i> < 0.001), whereas for the ICA flow and ECA flow the correlation was only moderate (<i>r</i> = 0.4, <i>p</i> = 0.011 and <i>r</i> = 0.45, <i>p</i> = 0.003, respectively). Correlations of peak velocities between methods were good for CCA (<i>r</i> = 0.56, <i>p</i> < 0.001) and moderate for ECA (<i>r</i> = 0.41, <i>p</i> = 0.008). There was no correlation for ICA (<i>r</i> = 0.04, <i>p</i> = 0.805). Cross-sectional area values between methods showed no significant correlations for CCA (<i>r</i> = 0.18, <i>p</i> = 0.269), ICA (<i>r</i> = 0.1, <i>p</i> = 0.543), and ECA (<i>r</i> = 0.05, <i>p</i> = 0.767). Conclusion: the 4D-flow imaging provided a good correlation of CCA and a moderate correlation of ICA flow rates against 2D-PC, underestimating peak velocities and overestimating cross-sectional areas in all carotid segments.https://www.mdpi.com/2379-139X/7/4/44magnetic resonance imagingcarotid stenosisendarterectomycarotid arteriesrandomized controlled trialphase-contrast magnetic resonance |
| spellingShingle | Francesco Secchi Caterina Beatrice Monti Davide Capra Renato Vitale Daniela Mazzaccaro Michele Conti Ning Jin Daniel Giese Giovanni Nano Francesco Sardanelli Massimiliano M. Marrocco-Trischitta Carotid Phase-Contrast Magnetic Resonance before Treatment: 4D-Flow versus Standard 2D Imaging Tomography magnetic resonance imaging carotid stenosis endarterectomy carotid arteries randomized controlled trial phase-contrast magnetic resonance |
| title | Carotid Phase-Contrast Magnetic Resonance before Treatment: 4D-Flow versus Standard 2D Imaging |
| title_full | Carotid Phase-Contrast Magnetic Resonance before Treatment: 4D-Flow versus Standard 2D Imaging |
| title_fullStr | Carotid Phase-Contrast Magnetic Resonance before Treatment: 4D-Flow versus Standard 2D Imaging |
| title_full_unstemmed | Carotid Phase-Contrast Magnetic Resonance before Treatment: 4D-Flow versus Standard 2D Imaging |
| title_short | Carotid Phase-Contrast Magnetic Resonance before Treatment: 4D-Flow versus Standard 2D Imaging |
| title_sort | carotid phase contrast magnetic resonance before treatment 4d flow versus standard 2d imaging |
| topic | magnetic resonance imaging carotid stenosis endarterectomy carotid arteries randomized controlled trial phase-contrast magnetic resonance |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2379-139X/7/4/44 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT francescosecchi carotidphasecontrastmagneticresonancebeforetreatment4dflowversusstandard2dimaging AT caterinabeatricemonti carotidphasecontrastmagneticresonancebeforetreatment4dflowversusstandard2dimaging AT davidecapra carotidphasecontrastmagneticresonancebeforetreatment4dflowversusstandard2dimaging AT renatovitale carotidphasecontrastmagneticresonancebeforetreatment4dflowversusstandard2dimaging AT danielamazzaccaro carotidphasecontrastmagneticresonancebeforetreatment4dflowversusstandard2dimaging AT micheleconti carotidphasecontrastmagneticresonancebeforetreatment4dflowversusstandard2dimaging AT ningjin carotidphasecontrastmagneticresonancebeforetreatment4dflowversusstandard2dimaging AT danielgiese carotidphasecontrastmagneticresonancebeforetreatment4dflowversusstandard2dimaging AT giovanninano carotidphasecontrastmagneticresonancebeforetreatment4dflowversusstandard2dimaging AT francescosardanelli carotidphasecontrastmagneticresonancebeforetreatment4dflowversusstandard2dimaging AT massimilianommarroccotrischitta carotidphasecontrastmagneticresonancebeforetreatment4dflowversusstandard2dimaging |