Fully Automated Valve Segmentation for Blood Flow Assessment From 4D Flow MRI Including Automated Cardiac Valve Tracking and Transvalvular Velocity Mapping.

Abstract

Automated 4D flow MRI valvular flow quantification without time-consuming manual segmentation might improve workflow. Compare automated valve segmentation (AS) to manual (MS), and manually corrected automated segmentation (AMS), in corrected atrioventricular septum defect (c-AVSD) patients and healthy volunteers, for assessing net forward volume (NFV) and regurgitation fraction (RF). Retrospective. 27 c-AVSD patients (median, 23 years; interquartile range, 16-31 years) and 24 healthy volunteers (25 years; 12.5-36.5 years). Whole-heart 4D flow MRI and cine steady-state free precession at 3T. After automatic valve tracking, valve annuli were segmented on time-resolved reformatted trans-valvular velocity images by AS, MS, and AMS. NFV was calculated for all valves, and RF for right and left atrioventricular valves (RAVV and LAVV). NFV variation (standard deviation divided by mean NFV) and NFV differences (NFV difference of a valve vs. mean NFV of other valves) expressed internal NFV consistency. Comparisons between methods were assessed by Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and intra/interobserver variability by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant, with multiple testing correction. AMS mean analysis time was significantly shorter compared with MS (5.3 ± 1.6 minutes vs. 9.1 ± 2.5 minutes). MS NFV variation (6.0%) was significantly smaller compared with AMS (6.3%), and AS (8.2%). Median NFV difference of RAVV, LAVV, PV, and AoV between segmentation methods ranged from -0.7-1.0 mL, -0.5-2.8 mL, -1.1-3.6 mL, and - 3.1--2.1 mL, respectively. Median RAVV and LAVV RF, between 7.1%-7.5% and 3.8%-4.3%, respectively, were not significantly different between methods. Intraobserver/interobserver agreement for AMS and MS was strong-to-excellent for NFV and RF (ICC ≥0.88). MS demonstrates strongest internal consistency, followed closely by AMS, and AS. Automated segmentation, with or without manual correction, can be considered for 4D flow MRI valvular flow quantification. 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 3.