Comparison of 2D and 4D Flow MRI in Neonates Without General Anesthesia

Multi-Modal in Vitro Experiments Mimicking the Flow Through a Mitral Heart Valve Phantom

PURPOSE

Fluid-structure interaction (FSI) models are more commonly applied in medical research as computational power is increasing. However, understanding the accuracy of FSI models is crucial, especially in the context of heart valve disease in patient-specific models. Therefore, this study aimed to create a multi-modal benchmarking data set for cardiac-inspired FSI models, based on clinically important parameters, such as the pressure, velocity, and valve opening, with an in vitro phantom setup.

METHOD

An in vitro setup was developed with a 3D-printed phantom mimicking the left heart, including a deforming mitral valve. A range of pulsatile flows were created with a computer-controlled motor-and-pump setup. Catheter pressure measurements, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and echocardiography (Echo) imaging were used to measure pressure and velocity in the domain. Furthermore, the valve opening was quantified based on cine MRI and Echo images.

RESULT

The experimental setup, with 0.5% cycle-to-cycle variation, was successfully built and six different flow cases were investigated. Higher velocity through the mitral valve was observed for increased cardiac output. The pressure difference across the valve also followed this trend. The flow in the phantom was qualitatively assessed by the velocity profile in the ventricle and by streamlines obtained from 4D phase-contrast MRI.

CONCLUSION

A multi-modal set of data for validation of FSI models has been created, based on parameters relevant for diagnosis of heart valve disease. All data is publicly available for future development of computational heart valve models.

Using Gaussian process for velocity reconstruction after coronary stenosis applicable in positron emission particle tracking: An in-silico study

Accurate velocity reconstruction is essential for assessing coronary artery disease. We propose a Gaussian process method to reconstruct the velocity profile using the sparse data of the positron emission particle tracking (PEPT) in a biological environment, which allows the measurement of tracer particle velocity to infer fluid velocity fields. We investigated the influence of tracer particle quantity and detection time interval on flow reconstruction accuracy. Three models were used to represent different levels of stenosis and anatomical complexity: a narrowed straight tube, an idealized coronary bifurcation with stenosis, and patient-specific coronary arteries with a stenotic left circumflex artery. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD), particle tracking, and the Gaussian process of kriging were employed to simulate and reconstruct the pulsatile flow field. The study examined the error and uncertainty in velocity profile reconstruction after stenosis by comparing particle-derived flow velocity with the CFD solution. Using 600 particles (15 batches of 40 particles) released in the main coronary artery, the time-averaged error in velocity reconstruction ranged from 13.4% (no occlusion) to 161% (70% occlusion) in patient-specific anatomy. The error in maximum cross-sectional velocity at peak flow was consistently below 10% in all cases. PEPT and kriging tended to overestimate area-averaged velocity in higher occlusion cases but accurately predicted maximum cross-sectional velocity, particularly at peak flow. Kriging was shown to be useful to estimate the maximum velocity after the stenosis in the absence of negative near-wall velocity.

4D Flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance consensus statement: 2023 update

Hemodynamic assessment is an integral part of the diagnosis and management of cardiovascular disease. Four-dimensional cardiovascular magnetic resonance flow imaging (4D Flow CMR) allows comprehensive and accurate assessment of flow in a single acquisition. This consensus paper is an update from the 2015 '4D Flow CMR Consensus Statement'. We elaborate on 4D Flow CMR sequence options and imaging considerations. The document aims to assist centers starting out with 4D Flow CMR of the heart and great vessels with advice on acquisition parameters, post-processing workflows and integration into clinical practice. Furthermore, we define minimum quality assurance and validation standards for clinical centers. We also address the challenges faced in quality assurance and validation in the research setting. We also include a checklist for recommended publication standards, specifically for 4D Flow CMR. Finally, we discuss the current limitations and the future of 4D Flow CMR. This updated consensus paper will further facilitate widespread adoption of 4D Flow CMR in the clinical workflow across the globe and aid consistently high-quality publication standards.