Validation of 4D flow CMR against simultaneous invasive hemodynamic measurements: a swine study
The purpose of this study was to compare invasively measured aorta fow with 2D phase contrast fow and 4D fow measurements by cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging in a large animal model. Nine swine (mean weight 63±4 kg) were included in the study. 4D fow CMR exams were performed on a 1.5T MRI scanner. Flow measurements were performed on 4D fow images at the aortic valve level, in the ascending aorta, and main pulmonary artery. Simultaneously, fow was measured using an invasive fow probe, placed around the ascending aorta. Additionally, standard 2D phase contrast fow and 2D left ventricular (LV) volumetric data were used for comparison. The correlations of cardiac output (CO) between the invasive fow probe, and CMR modalities were strong to very strong. CO measured by 4D fow CMR correlated better with the CO measured by the invasive fow probe than 2D fow CMR fow and volumetric LV data (4D fow CMR: Spearman’s rho = 0.86 at the aortic valve level and 0.90 at the ascending aorta level; 2D fow CMR: 0.67 at aortic valve level; LV measurements: 0.77). In addition, there tended to be a correlation between mean pulmonary artery fow and aorta fow with 4D fow (Spearman’s rho=0.65, P=0.07), which was absent in measurements obtained with 2D fow CMR (Spearman’s rho=0.40, P=0.33). This study shows that aorta fow can be accurately measured by 4D fow CMR compared to simultaneously measured invasive fow. This helps to further validate the quantitative reliability of this technique.
|Keywords||4D fow CMR · Flow measurement · Invasive fow probe · Swine|
|Persistent URL||dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10554-019-01593-x, hdl.handle.net/1765/117106|
|Journal||International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging|
Stam, K., Chelu, R.G., van der Velde, N., van Duin, R., Wielopolski, P.A, Nieman, K, … Hirsch, A. (2019). Validation of 4D flow CMR against simultaneous invasive hemodynamic measurements: a swine study. International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging, 35(6), 1111–1118. doi:10.1007/s10554-019-01593-x