Cargando…
The clinical impact of phase offset errors and different correction methods in cardiovascular magnetic resonance phase contrast imaging: a multi-scanner study
BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) phase contrast (PC) flow measurements suffer from phase offset errors. Background subtraction based on stationary phantom measurements can most reliably be used to overcome this inaccuracy. Stationary tissue correction is an alternative and does no...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7495876/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32938483 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12968-020-00659-3 |
_version_ | 1783582979379953664 |
---|---|
author | Minderhoud, Savine C. S. van der Velde, Nikki Wentzel, Jolanda J. van der Geest, Rob J. Attrach, Mohammed Wielopolski, Piotr A. Budde, Ricardo P. J. Helbing, Willem A. Roos-Hesselink, Jolien W. Hirsch, Alexander |
author_facet | Minderhoud, Savine C. S. van der Velde, Nikki Wentzel, Jolanda J. van der Geest, Rob J. Attrach, Mohammed Wielopolski, Piotr A. Budde, Ricardo P. J. Helbing, Willem A. Roos-Hesselink, Jolien W. Hirsch, Alexander |
author_sort | Minderhoud, Savine C. S. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) phase contrast (PC) flow measurements suffer from phase offset errors. Background subtraction based on stationary phantom measurements can most reliably be used to overcome this inaccuracy. Stationary tissue correction is an alternative and does not require additional phantom scanning. The aim of this study was 1) to compare measurements with and without stationary tissue correction to phantom corrected measurements on different GE Healthcare CMR scanners using different software packages and 2) to evaluate the clinical implications of these methods. METHODS: CMR PC imaging of both the aortic and pulmonary artery flow was performed in patients on three different 1.5 T CMR scanners (GE Healthcare) using identical scan parameters. Uncorrected, first, second and third order stationary tissue corrected flow measurement were compared to phantom corrected flow measurements, our reference method, using Medis QFlow, Circle cvi42 and MASS software. The optimal (optimized) stationary tissue order was determined per scanner and software program. Velocity offsets, net flow, clinically significant difference (deviation > 10% net flow), and regurgitation severity were assessed. RESULTS: Data from 175 patients (28 (17–38) years) were included, of which 84% had congenital heart disease. First, second and third order and optimized stationary tissue correction did not improve the velocity offsets and net flow measurements. Uncorrected measurements resulted in the least clinically significant differences in net flow compared to phantom corrected data. Optimized stationary tissue correction per scanner and software program resulted in net flow differences (> 10%) in 19% (MASS) and 30% (Circle cvi42) of all measurements compared to 18% (MASS) and 23% (Circle cvi42) with no correction. Compared to phantom correction, regurgitation reclassification was the least common using uncorrected data. One CMR scanner performed worse and significant net flow differences of > 10% were present both with and without stationary tissue correction in more than 30% of all measurements. CONCLUSION: Phase offset errors had a significant impact on net flow quantification, regurgitation assessment and varied greatly between CMR scanners. Background phase correction using stationary tissue correction worsened accuracy compared to no correction on three GE Healthcare CMR scanners. Therefore, careful assessment of phase offset errors at each individual scanner is essential to determine whether routine use of phantom correction is necessary. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Observational Study |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7495876 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-74958762020-09-23 The clinical impact of phase offset errors and different correction methods in cardiovascular magnetic resonance phase contrast imaging: a multi-scanner study Minderhoud, Savine C. S. van der Velde, Nikki Wentzel, Jolanda J. van der Geest, Rob J. Attrach, Mohammed Wielopolski, Piotr A. Budde, Ricardo P. J. Helbing, Willem A. Roos-Hesselink, Jolien W. Hirsch, Alexander J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Research BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) phase contrast (PC) flow measurements suffer from phase offset errors. Background subtraction based on stationary phantom measurements can most reliably be used to overcome this inaccuracy. Stationary tissue correction is an alternative and does not require additional phantom scanning. The aim of this study was 1) to compare measurements with and without stationary tissue correction to phantom corrected measurements on different GE Healthcare CMR scanners using different software packages and 2) to evaluate the clinical implications of these methods. METHODS: CMR PC imaging of both the aortic and pulmonary artery flow was performed in patients on three different 1.5 T CMR scanners (GE Healthcare) using identical scan parameters. Uncorrected, first, second and third order stationary tissue corrected flow measurement were compared to phantom corrected flow measurements, our reference method, using Medis QFlow, Circle cvi42 and MASS software. The optimal (optimized) stationary tissue order was determined per scanner and software program. Velocity offsets, net flow, clinically significant difference (deviation > 10% net flow), and regurgitation severity were assessed. RESULTS: Data from 175 patients (28 (17–38) years) were included, of which 84% had congenital heart disease. First, second and third order and optimized stationary tissue correction did not improve the velocity offsets and net flow measurements. Uncorrected measurements resulted in the least clinically significant differences in net flow compared to phantom corrected data. Optimized stationary tissue correction per scanner and software program resulted in net flow differences (> 10%) in 19% (MASS) and 30% (Circle cvi42) of all measurements compared to 18% (MASS) and 23% (Circle cvi42) with no correction. Compared to phantom correction, regurgitation reclassification was the least common using uncorrected data. One CMR scanner performed worse and significant net flow differences of > 10% were present both with and without stationary tissue correction in more than 30% of all measurements. CONCLUSION: Phase offset errors had a significant impact on net flow quantification, regurgitation assessment and varied greatly between CMR scanners. Background phase correction using stationary tissue correction worsened accuracy compared to no correction on three GE Healthcare CMR scanners. Therefore, careful assessment of phase offset errors at each individual scanner is essential to determine whether routine use of phantom correction is necessary. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Observational Study BioMed Central 2020-09-17 /pmc/articles/PMC7495876/ /pubmed/32938483 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12968-020-00659-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Minderhoud, Savine C. S. van der Velde, Nikki Wentzel, Jolanda J. van der Geest, Rob J. Attrach, Mohammed Wielopolski, Piotr A. Budde, Ricardo P. J. Helbing, Willem A. Roos-Hesselink, Jolien W. Hirsch, Alexander The clinical impact of phase offset errors and different correction methods in cardiovascular magnetic resonance phase contrast imaging: a multi-scanner study |
title | The clinical impact of phase offset errors and different correction methods in cardiovascular magnetic resonance phase contrast imaging: a multi-scanner study |
title_full | The clinical impact of phase offset errors and different correction methods in cardiovascular magnetic resonance phase contrast imaging: a multi-scanner study |
title_fullStr | The clinical impact of phase offset errors and different correction methods in cardiovascular magnetic resonance phase contrast imaging: a multi-scanner study |
title_full_unstemmed | The clinical impact of phase offset errors and different correction methods in cardiovascular magnetic resonance phase contrast imaging: a multi-scanner study |
title_short | The clinical impact of phase offset errors and different correction methods in cardiovascular magnetic resonance phase contrast imaging: a multi-scanner study |
title_sort | clinical impact of phase offset errors and different correction methods in cardiovascular magnetic resonance phase contrast imaging: a multi-scanner study |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7495876/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32938483 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12968-020-00659-3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT minderhoudsavinecs theclinicalimpactofphaseoffseterrorsanddifferentcorrectionmethodsincardiovascularmagneticresonancephasecontrastimagingamultiscannerstudy AT vanderveldenikki theclinicalimpactofphaseoffseterrorsanddifferentcorrectionmethodsincardiovascularmagneticresonancephasecontrastimagingamultiscannerstudy AT wentzeljolandaj theclinicalimpactofphaseoffseterrorsanddifferentcorrectionmethodsincardiovascularmagneticresonancephasecontrastimagingamultiscannerstudy AT vandergeestrobj theclinicalimpactofphaseoffseterrorsanddifferentcorrectionmethodsincardiovascularmagneticresonancephasecontrastimagingamultiscannerstudy AT attrachmohammed theclinicalimpactofphaseoffseterrorsanddifferentcorrectionmethodsincardiovascularmagneticresonancephasecontrastimagingamultiscannerstudy AT wielopolskipiotra theclinicalimpactofphaseoffseterrorsanddifferentcorrectionmethodsincardiovascularmagneticresonancephasecontrastimagingamultiscannerstudy AT buddericardopj theclinicalimpactofphaseoffseterrorsanddifferentcorrectionmethodsincardiovascularmagneticresonancephasecontrastimagingamultiscannerstudy AT helbingwillema theclinicalimpactofphaseoffseterrorsanddifferentcorrectionmethodsincardiovascularmagneticresonancephasecontrastimagingamultiscannerstudy AT rooshesselinkjolienw theclinicalimpactofphaseoffseterrorsanddifferentcorrectionmethodsincardiovascularmagneticresonancephasecontrastimagingamultiscannerstudy AT hirschalexander theclinicalimpactofphaseoffseterrorsanddifferentcorrectionmethodsincardiovascularmagneticresonancephasecontrastimagingamultiscannerstudy AT minderhoudsavinecs clinicalimpactofphaseoffseterrorsanddifferentcorrectionmethodsincardiovascularmagneticresonancephasecontrastimagingamultiscannerstudy AT vanderveldenikki clinicalimpactofphaseoffseterrorsanddifferentcorrectionmethodsincardiovascularmagneticresonancephasecontrastimagingamultiscannerstudy AT wentzeljolandaj clinicalimpactofphaseoffseterrorsanddifferentcorrectionmethodsincardiovascularmagneticresonancephasecontrastimagingamultiscannerstudy AT vandergeestrobj clinicalimpactofphaseoffseterrorsanddifferentcorrectionmethodsincardiovascularmagneticresonancephasecontrastimagingamultiscannerstudy AT attrachmohammed clinicalimpactofphaseoffseterrorsanddifferentcorrectionmethodsincardiovascularmagneticresonancephasecontrastimagingamultiscannerstudy AT wielopolskipiotra clinicalimpactofphaseoffseterrorsanddifferentcorrectionmethodsincardiovascularmagneticresonancephasecontrastimagingamultiscannerstudy AT buddericardopj clinicalimpactofphaseoffseterrorsanddifferentcorrectionmethodsincardiovascularmagneticresonancephasecontrastimagingamultiscannerstudy AT helbingwillema clinicalimpactofphaseoffseterrorsanddifferentcorrectionmethodsincardiovascularmagneticresonancephasecontrastimagingamultiscannerstudy AT rooshesselinkjolienw clinicalimpactofphaseoffseterrorsanddifferentcorrectionmethodsincardiovascularmagneticresonancephasecontrastimagingamultiscannerstudy AT hirschalexander clinicalimpactofphaseoffseterrorsanddifferentcorrectionmethodsincardiovascularmagneticresonancephasecontrastimagingamultiscannerstudy |