| Title |
Comparison of 4D flow and 2D velocity-encoded phase contrast MRI sequences for the evaluation of aortic hemodynamics
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10554-016-0938-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Emilie Bollache, Pim van Ooij, Alex Powell, James Carr, Michael Markl, Alex J. Barker |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this study was to compare aortic flow and velocity quantification using 4D flow MRI and 2D CINE phase-contrast (PC)-MRI with either one-directional (2D-1dir) or three-directional (2D-3dir) velocity encoding. 15 healthy volunteers (51 ± 19 years) underwent MRI including (1) breath-holding 2D-1dir and (2) free breathing 2D-3dir PC-MRI in planes orthogonal to the ascending (AA) and descending (DA) aorta, as well as (3) free breathing 4D flow MRI with full thoracic aorta coverage. Flow quantification included the co-registration of the 2D PC acquisition planes with 4D flow MRI data, AA and DA segmentation, and calculation of AA and DA peak systolic velocity, peak flow and net flow volume for all sequences. Additionally, the 2D-3dir velocity taking into account the through-plane component only was used to obtain results analogous to a free breathing 2D-1dir acquisition. Good agreement was found between 4D flow and 2D-3dir peak velocity (differences = -3 to 6 %), peak flow (-7 %) and net volume (-14 to -9 %). In contrast, breath-holding 2D-1dir measurements exhibited indices significantly lower than free breathing 2D-3dir and 2D-1dir (differences = -35 to -7 %, p < 0.05). Finally, high correlations (r ≥ 0.97) were obtained for indices estimated with or without eddy current correction, with the lowest correlation observed for net volume. 4D flow and 2D-3dir aortic hemodynamic indices were in concordance. However, differences between respiration state and 2D-1dir and 2D-3dir measurements indicate that reference values should be established according to the PC-MRI sequence, especially for the widely used net flow (e.g. stroke volume in the AA). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 92 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 15% |
| Researcher | 13 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 9 | 10% |
| Unknown | 22 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 33% |
| Engineering | 21 | 23% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Mathematics | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Unknown | 25 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 January 2017.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging
#938
of 2,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#248,094
of 377,264 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging
#11
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,012 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 377,264 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.