Abstract
BackgroundComparing four-dimensional flow against two-dimensional flow measurements in patients with complex flow pattern is still lacking. This study aimed to compare four-dimensional against the two-dimensional flow measurement in patients with bicuspid aortic valve and to test potentials of four-dimensional operator-dependent sources of error.ResultsThe two- and four-dimensional flow data sets of sixteen patients with bicuspid aortic valve and eighteen healthy subjects were studied. Flow analyses were performed by two observers blindly. Patients with bicuspid aortic valve mean differences between the two- and four-dimensional measurements in both observers were − 8 and − 4 ml, respectively. Four-dimensional measurements resulted in systematically higher flow values than the two-dimensional flow in bicuspid aortic valve patients. The upper and lower limits of agreement between the two- and four-dimensional measurements by both observers were + 12/− 28 ml and + 14/− 21 ml, respectively. In the healthy volunteers, mean differences between the two- and four-dimensional measurements in both observers were ± 0 and + 1 ml, respectively. The upper and lower limits of agreement between the two- and four-dimensional measurements by both observers were + 21/− 18 ml and + 12/− 13 ml, respectively. Inter-observer variability in four-dimensional flow measurement was 4% mean net forward flow in bicuspid aortic valve patients and 8% in healthy volunteers.ConclusionInter-observer variability in four-dimensional flow assessment is 8% or less which is acceptable for clinical cardiac MRI routine. There is close agreement of two- and four-dimensional flow tools in normal and complex flow pattern. In complex flow pattern, however, four-dimensional flow measurement picks up 4–9% higher flow values. It seems, therefore, that four-dimensional flow is closer to real flow values than two-dimensional flow, which is however to be proven by further studies.
Highlights
Comparing four-dimensional flow against two-dimensional flow measurements in patients with complex flow pattern is still lacking
The 16 patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) had a median age of 26 years and a regurgitation fraction through the aortic valve median of 2% using two-dimensional flow analysis and of 1% using four-dimensional flow analysis with observer one
Inter-observer variability in four-dimensional flow assessment is 8% or less which is acceptable for clinical cardiac Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) routine
Summary
Comparing four-dimensional flow against two-dimensional flow measurements in patients with complex flow pattern is still lacking. This study aimed to compare four-dimensional against the two-dimensional flow measurement in patients with bicuspid aortic valve and to test potentials of four-dimensional operatordependent sources of error. Intraindividual validation of the quantification of fourdimensional flow tool against two-dimensional flow tool was previously performed mostly in normal subjects [4]. Visualization of abnormal flow patterns by fourdimensional flow tool following surgery for complex CHD [5,6,7,8] was previously published as well. The estimation of the four-dimensional operator-dependent source of error during segmentation and post processing is scarcely discussed. To test the four-dimensional operator-dependent sources of error
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
More From: Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.