Skip to main content

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Cardiovasc. Med.
Sec. Cardiovascular Imaging
Volume 11 - 2024 | doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2024.1465554

Influence of Post-Processing Software on Quantitative Results in 4D Flow Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Examinations

Provisionally accepted
Ralf Felix Trauzeddel Ralf Felix Trauzeddel 1Maximilian Müller Maximilian Müller 1Aylin Demir Aylin Demir 1Stephanie Wiesemann Stephanie Wiesemann 1Elias Daud Elias Daud 1Sebastian Schmitter Sebastian Schmitter 2Darian Viezzer Darian Viezzer 1Thomas Hadler Thomas Hadler 1Jeanette Schulz-Menger Jeanette Schulz-Menger 1*
  • 1 Charité University Medicine Berlin, Berlin, Germany
  • 2 Physical-Technical Federal Institute, Braunschweig/Brunswick, Niedersachsen, Germany

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

    Different commercially available software exist for the analysis of three-dimensional cine phasecontrast cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) with three-directional velocity encoding (4D Flow CMR). There is only sparse data available on the impact of these different software solutions on quantitative results. We compared two different commercially available and widely used software and their impact on forward flow volume (FFV), peak velocity (PV) and maximum wall shear stress (WSS) per plane.4D Flow CMR datasets acquired at 3T of 10 healthy volunteers and 13 patients with aortic stenosis (AS) and 7 patients with aortic valve replacement (AVR) were retrospectively analyzed for FFV, PV and WSS using two software packages in six analysis planes along the thoracic aorta. Absolute (AD) and relative differences (RD), intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman analysis as well as Spearman`s correlation analysis were calculated.For FFV and PV in healthy volunteers, there was good to excellent agreement between both software (FFV: ICC = 0.93 -0.97, AD: 0.1 ± 5.4 ml -(-2.3 ± 2.4 ml), RD: -0.3 ± 8 % -(-5.7 ± 6.0 %); PV: ICC = 0.81 -0.99, AD: -0.02 ± 0.02 ml -(-0.1 ± 0.1 ml), RD: -1.6 ± 2.1 % -(-9.3 ± 6.1 %)). In patients, FFV showed good to excellent agreement (ICC: 0.75 -0.91, AD: -1.8 ± 6.5 ml -(-8.3 ± 9.9 ml), RD: -2.2 ± 9.2% -(-13.8 ± 17.4 %)). PV in the ascending aorta showed only poor to moderate agreement in patients (Plane 2 ICC: 0.33, Plane 3 ICC: 0.72), whereas the rest of the thoracic aorta revealed good to excellent agreement (ICC: 0.95 -0.98, AD: -0.03 ± 0.07 -(-0.1 ± 0.1 m/s), RD: -3.5 ± 7.9% -(-7.8 ± 9.9%)). WSS analysis showed no to poor agreement between both software packages. Global correlation analyses revealed good to very good correlation between FFV and PV and only poor correlation for WSS.There was good to very good agreement for FFV and PV except for the ascending aorta in patients when comparing PV and no agreement for WSS. Standardization is therefore necessary.

    Keywords: cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging, 4D flow CMR, Phase-contrast CMR, Post-processing, Quality Assurance, Reliability

    Received: 16 Jul 2024; Accepted: 10 Sep 2024.

    Copyright: © 2024 Trauzeddel, Müller, Demir, Wiesemann, Daud, Schmitter, Viezzer, Hadler and Schulz-Menger. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

    * Correspondence: Jeanette Schulz-Menger, Charité University Medicine Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.