Independent validation of four-dimensional flow MR velocities and vortex ring volume using particle imaging velocimetry and planar laser-Induced fluorescence. : Validation of 4D Flow using PIV and PLIF
Author
Summary, in English
PURPOSE:
This study aimed to: (i) present and characterize a phantom setup for validation of four-dimensional (4D) flow using particle imaging velocimetry (PIV) and planar laser-induced fluorescence (PLIF); (ii) validate 4D flow velocity measurements using PIV; and (iii) validate 4D flow vortex ring volume (VV) using PLIF.
METHODS:
A pulsatile pump and a tank with a 25-mm nozzle were constructed. PIV measurements (1.5 × 1.5 mm pixels, temporal resolution 10 ms) were obtained on two occasions. The 4D flow (3 × 3 × 3 mm voxels, temporal resolution 50 ms) was acquired using SENSE = 2. VV was quantified using PLIF and 4D flow.
RESULTS:
PIV showed excellent day-to-day stability (R(2) = 0.99, bias -0.04 ± 0.72 cm/s). The 4D flow mean velocities agreed well with PIV (R(2) = 0.95, bias 0.16 ± 2.65 cm/s). Peak velocities in 4D flow were underestimated by 7-18% compared with PIV (y = 0.79x + 2.7, R(2) = 0.96, -12 ± 5%). VV showed excellent agreement between PLIF and 4D flow (R(2) = 0.99, 2.4 ± 1.5 mL).
CONCLUSION:
This study shows: (i) The proposed phantom enables reliable validation of 4D flow. (ii) 4D flow velocities show good agreement with PIV, but peak velocities were underestimated due to low spatial and temporal resolution. (iii) Vortex ring volume (VV) can be quantified using 4D flow.
This study aimed to: (i) present and characterize a phantom setup for validation of four-dimensional (4D) flow using particle imaging velocimetry (PIV) and planar laser-induced fluorescence (PLIF); (ii) validate 4D flow velocity measurements using PIV; and (iii) validate 4D flow vortex ring volume (VV) using PLIF.
METHODS:
A pulsatile pump and a tank with a 25-mm nozzle were constructed. PIV measurements (1.5 × 1.5 mm pixels, temporal resolution 10 ms) were obtained on two occasions. The 4D flow (3 × 3 × 3 mm voxels, temporal resolution 50 ms) was acquired using SENSE = 2. VV was quantified using PLIF and 4D flow.
RESULTS:
PIV showed excellent day-to-day stability (R(2) = 0.99, bias -0.04 ± 0.72 cm/s). The 4D flow mean velocities agreed well with PIV (R(2) = 0.95, bias 0.16 ± 2.65 cm/s). Peak velocities in 4D flow were underestimated by 7-18% compared with PIV (y = 0.79x + 2.7, R(2) = 0.96, -12 ± 5%). VV showed excellent agreement between PLIF and 4D flow (R(2) = 0.99, 2.4 ± 1.5 mL).
CONCLUSION:
This study shows: (i) The proposed phantom enables reliable validation of 4D flow. (ii) 4D flow velocities show good agreement with PIV, but peak velocities were underestimated due to low spatial and temporal resolution. (iii) Vortex ring volume (VV) can be quantified using 4D flow.
Department/s
- Diagnostic Radiology, (Lund)
- BioCARE: Biomarkers in Cancer Medicine improving Health Care, Education and Innovation
- Lund Cardiac MR Group
- Department of Biomedical Engineering
- Fluid Mechanics
- eSSENCE: The e-Science Collaboration
- Clinical Physiology (Lund)
- Section V
Publishing year
2016-03-01
Language
English
Pages
1064-1075
Publication/Series
Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
Volume
75
Issue
3
Links
Document type
Journal article
Publisher
John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Topic
- Medical Image Processing
Status
Published
Research group
- Lund Cardiac MR Group
ISBN/ISSN/Other
- ISSN: 1522-2594