Next Article in Journal
Is It Worth Considering Multicentric High-Grade Glioma a Surgical Disease? Analysis of Our Clinical Experience and Literature Review
Previous Article in Journal
Diagnostic Accuracy of Coronary Artery Occlusion and Myocardial Perfusion Defect on Non-Gated Enhanced Chest CT in Predicting Acute Myocardial Infarction
Previous Article in Special Issue
Evaluating a Machine Learning Tool for the Classification of Pathological Uptake in Whole-Body PSMA-PET-CT Scans
Article

Carotid Phase-Contrast Magnetic Resonance before Treatment: 4D-Flow versus Standard 2D Imaging

1
Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, 20100 Milan, Italy
2
Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, 20097 San Donato Milanese, Italy
3
Unit of Vascular Surgery, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, 20097 San Donato Milanese, Italy
4
Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture, University of Pavia, 27100 Pavia, Italy
5
Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc., Malvern, PA 19355, USA
6
Magnetic Resonance, Siemens Healthcare GmbH, 91052 Erlangen, Germany
7
Clinical Research Unit, Cardiovascular Department, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, 20097 San Donato Milanese, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Mariusz Pelc
Tomography 2021, 7(4), 513-522; https://doi.org/10.3390/tomography7040044
Received: 7 July 2021 / Revised: 15 September 2021 / Accepted: 22 September 2021 / Published: 28 September 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue AI Imaging Diagnostic Tools)
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the level of agreement between flow/velocity data obtained from 2D-phase-contrast (PC) and 4D-flow in patients scheduled for treatment of carotid artery stenosis. Image acquisition was performed using a 1.5 T scanner. We compared mean flow rates, vessel areas, and peak velocities obtained during the acquisition with both techniques in 20 consecutive patients, 15 males and 5 females aged 69 ± 5 years (mean ± standard deviation). There was a good correlation between both techniques for the CCA flow (r = 0.65, p < 0.001), whereas for the ICA flow and ECA flow the correlation was only moderate (r = 0.4, p = 0.011 and r = 0.45, p = 0.003, respectively). Correlations of peak velocities between methods were good for CCA (r = 0.56, p < 0.001) and moderate for ECA (r = 0.41, p = 0.008). There was no correlation for ICA (r = 0.04, p = 0.805). Cross-sectional area values between methods showed no significant correlations for CCA (r = 0.18, p = 0.269), ICA (r = 0.1, p = 0.543), and ECA (r = 0.05, p = 0.767). Conclusion: the 4D-flow imaging provided a good correlation of CCA and a moderate correlation of ICA flow rates against 2D-PC, underestimating peak velocities and overestimating cross-sectional areas in all carotid segments. View Full-Text
Keywords: magnetic resonance imaging; carotid stenosis; endarterectomy; carotid arteries; randomized controlled trial; phase-contrast magnetic resonance magnetic resonance imaging; carotid stenosis; endarterectomy; carotid arteries; randomized controlled trial; phase-contrast magnetic resonance
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Secchi, F.; Monti, C.B.; Capra, D.; Vitale, R.; Mazzaccaro, D.; Conti, M.; Jin, N.; Giese, D.; Nano, G.; Sardanelli, F.; Marrocco-Trischitta, M.M. Carotid Phase-Contrast Magnetic Resonance before Treatment: 4D-Flow versus Standard 2D Imaging. Tomography 2021, 7, 513-522. https://doi.org/10.3390/tomography7040044

AMA Style

Secchi F, Monti CB, Capra D, Vitale R, Mazzaccaro D, Conti M, Jin N, Giese D, Nano G, Sardanelli F, Marrocco-Trischitta MM. Carotid Phase-Contrast Magnetic Resonance before Treatment: 4D-Flow versus Standard 2D Imaging. Tomography. 2021; 7(4):513-522. https://doi.org/10.3390/tomography7040044

Chicago/Turabian Style

Secchi, Francesco, Caterina B. Monti, Davide Capra, Renato Vitale, Daniela Mazzaccaro, Michele Conti, Ning Jin, Daniel Giese, Giovanni Nano, Francesco Sardanelli, and Massimiliano M. Marrocco-Trischitta 2021. "Carotid Phase-Contrast Magnetic Resonance before Treatment: 4D-Flow versus Standard 2D Imaging" Tomography 7, no. 4: 513-522. https://doi.org/10.3390/tomography7040044

Find Other Styles

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop