■探讨通过压缩感知(CS)加速的4D流量MRI用于颅内动脉和静脉窦的血流动力学定量的可行性和性能。
■前瞻性招募了40名健康志愿者,20名志愿者接受了脑动脉4D血流MRI检查,其余志愿者接受静脉窦4D血流MRI检查。获得了一系列不同加速因子(AF)的4D流MRI,包括灵敏度编码(SENSE,3.0TMRI扫描仪的AF=4)和CS(AF=CS4,CS6,CS8和CS10)。血液动力学参数,包括流量,平均速度,峰值速度,最大轴向壁面剪应力(WSS),平均轴向WSS,最大圆周WSS,平均圆周WSS,和3DWSS,在颈内动脉(ICA)计算,横窦(TS),直窦(SS),上矢状窦(SSS)。
■与SENSE4扫描相比,对于左侧ICAC2,由CS8和CS10组测量的平均速度,CS6、CS8和CS10组测量的3DWSS被低估;对于正确的ICAC2,CS10组测量的平均速度,CS8和CS10组测量的3DWSS被低估;对于正确的ICAC4,CS10组测量的平均速度,CS8和CS10组测量的3DWSS被低估;对于正确的ICAC7,CS8和CS10组测量的平均速度和3DWSS,CS8组测量的平均轴向WSS也被低估(均p<0.05)。对于左边的TS,CS10组测量的最大轴向WSS和3DWSS被显著低估(p=0.032和0.003)。同样,对于SS,平均速度,峰值速度,CS8和CS10组测量的平均轴向WSS,CS6、CS8和CS10组测量的最大轴向WSS,与SENSE4扫描相比,CS10组测量的3DWSS被显著低估(p=0.000-0.021)。与ICA和每个静脉窦的常规4D流量(SENSE4)相比,CS4组测量的血液动力学参数仅具有最小的偏差和很大的一致性极限(95%一致性极限的最大/分钟上限至下限=11.4/0.03至0.004/-5.7,14.4/0.05至-0.03/-9.0,12.6/0.04至-0.03/-9.4,16.8/0.04至-0.6-14.1,CS4,CS1.2-
■CS4在流量量化和扫描时间之间的4D流量中取得了良好的平衡,可推荐用于常规临床使用。
UNASSIGNED: To investigate the feasibility and performance of 4D flow MRI accelerated by compressed sensing (CS) for the hemodynamic quantification of intracranial artery and venous sinus.
UNASSIGNED: Forty healthy volunteers were prospectively recruited, and 20 volunteers underwent 4D flow MRI of cerebral artery, and the remaining volunteers underwent 4D flow MRI of venous sinus. A series of 4D flow MRI was acquired with different acceleration factors (AFs), including sensitivity encoding (SENSE, AF = 4) and CS (AF = CS4, CS6, CS8, and CS10) at a 3.0 T MRI scanner. The hemodynamic parameters, including flow rate, mean velocity, peak velocity, max axial wall shear stress (WSS), average axial WSS, max circumferential WSS, average circumferential WSS, and 3D WSS, were calculated at the internal carotid artery (ICA), transverse sinus (TS), straight sinus (SS), and superior sagittal sinus (SSS).
UNASSIGNED: Compared to the SENSE4 scan, for the left ICA C2, mean velocity measured by CS8 and CS10 groups, and 3D WSS measured by CS6, CS8, and CS10 groups were underestimated; for the right ICA C2, mean velocity measured by CS10 group, and 3D WSS measured by CS8 and CS10 groups were underestimated; for the right ICA C4, mean velocity measured by CS10 group, and 3D WSS measured by CS8 and CS10 groups were underestimated; and for the right ICA C7, mean velocity and 3D WSS measured by CS8 and CS10 groups, and average axial WSS measured by CS8 group were also underestimated (all p < 0.05). For the left TS, max axial WSS and 3D WSS measured by CS10 group were significantly underestimated (p = 0.032 and 0.003). Similarly, for SS, mean velocity, peak velocity, average axial WSS measured by the CS8 and CS10 groups, max axial WSS measured by CS6, CS8, and CS10 groups, and 3D WSS measured by CS10 group were significantly underestimated compared to the SENSE4 scan (p = 0.000-0.021). The hemodynamic parameters measured by CS4 group had only minimal bias and great limits of agreement compared to conventional 4D flow (SENSE4) in the ICA and every venous sinus (the max/min upper limit to low limit of the 95% limits of agreement = 11.4/0.03 to 0.004/-5.7, 14.4/0.05 to -0.03/-9.0, 12.6/0.04 to -0.03/-9.4, 16.8/0.04 to 0.6/-14.1; the max/min bias = 5.0/-1.2, 3.5/-1.4, 4.5/-1.1, 6.6/-4.0 for CS4, CS6, CS8, and CS10, respectively).
UNASSIGNED: CS4 strikes a good balance in 4D flow between flow quantifications and scan time, which could be recommended for routine clinical use.