P5280The impact of background phase offset errors in cardiovascular magnetic resonance phase contrast imaging: a multi-scanner study

Abstract

Abstract Background Phase contrast (PC) CMR flow measurements (FM) are widely used for blood flow assessment, but they suffer from phase offset errors (POE). Stationary phantom correction limits these inaccuracies, however, this adds scan time. Stationary tissue (ST) correction is an alternative method that does not require additional scanning. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of POE, to assess interscanner variation, and to evaluate the ST correction usage. Methods We included 166 patients in which both aorta and main pulmonary artery FM were acquired including static gelatin phantom data. Subjects were scanned on three types of 1.5T scanners from the one vendor. Uncorrected and ST corrected FM were compared with phantom corrected FM, our reference value, and corrected for BSA. A difference of >10% in net flow was defined as clinically relevant. Regurgitation fraction was calculated and POE influences were assessed. Regurgitation severity was graded and POE influence on severity grading was assessed. Results Of the 166 cases included, the median age was 27 (5–74) years. Overall, the median difference between no corrected and phantom corrected FM was ≤6%, however, with a wide range of over- and underestimation (−155%–78% change) (figure). ST correction resulted in larger differences compared to no correction (p<0.01). Clinically significant differences were seen in 19% of all FM with no correction and in 30% of with ST correction (p<0.01). Furthermore, there were significant differences between scanners (no correction 10%, p<0.01; ST correction, p<0.01). Regurgitation severity indexing changed in 38 (11%) cases with no correction and in 48 (48%) with ST correction. Magnitude of flow change with and without offset corrections (n=332) Flow (ml/m2) Δ no correction and phantom correction (%) Δ ST correction and phantom correction (%) Clinically significant difference (>10%) Mean ± SD Median IQR Range Median IQR Range No correction, N (%) ST correction , N (%) MRI 1 (n=126) 50±12 3 0 to 6 −8 to 30 5 −3 to 9 −26 to 28 13 (10%) 34 (27%) MRI 2 (n=102) 48±13 −2 −15 to 6 −155 to 78 5 −3 to 11 −74 to 52 50 (49%) 50 (49%) MRI 3 (n=104) 48±12 −1 −1 to 0 −7 to 14 2 −2 to 5 −39 to 29 1 (1%) 16 (15%) Total (n=332) 49±12 0 −2 to 4 −155 to 78 3 −2 to 8 −74 to 52 64 (19%) 100 (30%) Conclusion Background POE have a significant impact on flow quantification and regurgitation severity. Unexpectedly, background correction using ST correction worsens accuracy compared to no correction. POE vary greatly between scanners. Therefore, careful assessment of FM at each scanner is essential to determine if routine phantom scanning is necessary.