026Dimensional flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance: two-centre, 1.5t, phantom and in-vivo validation study

BackgroundValidation of four-dimensional (4D) flow CMR accelerated acquisition methods is needed to make them more robust for clinical applications.1 Our aim was to compare three widely-used acceleration methods in 4D flow CMR: 4D segmented fast-gradient-echo (4D- turbo-field-echo, 4D-TFE), 4D non-segmented gradient-echo with echo-planar imaging (4D- EPI) and 4D-k-t Broad-use Linear Acquisition Speed-up Technique accelerated TFE (4D-k-t BLAST).MethodsCMR was performed in two institutions on identical 1.5T systems. Acceleration methods were compared in static/pulsatile phantoms (Figure 1) and 25 volunteers. In volunteers, the CMR protocol included: cines, 2D phase contrast (PC) at the aortic valve (AV) and mitral valve (MV) and three whole-heart free-breathing (no respiratory motion correction) 4D flow CMR pulse sequences. Field-of-view, slices, phases (30), voxel size and VENC were the same for each subject. In volunteers, net acquisition time for each 4D flow sequence was recorded, as well as a visual grading of image quality on a four-point scale: 0, no artefacts to 3, non-evaluable.[Figure]ResultsFor the pulsatile phantom experiments, the mean error against the reference flow by time beaker measurements for 4D-TFE was 4.9% plus or minus 1.3%, for 4D-EPI 7.6% plus or minus 1.3% and for 4D-k-t BLAST 4.4% plus or minus 1.9%. In vivo, acquisition time was shortest for 4D-EPI at 7 min59s plus or minus 2 min30s. 4D- EPI and 4D-k-t BLAST had minimal artefacts, while for 4D-TFE, 40% of AV and MV assessments were non-evaluable because of phase dispersion artefacts. Peak velocity assessment using 4D-EPI demonstrated best correlation to 2D PC (AV: r=0.78, p