Measuring aortic pulse wave velocity using high-field cardiovascular magnetic resonance: comparison of techniques.
BACKGROUND
The assessment of arterial stiffness is increasingly used for evaluating patients with different cardiovascular diseases as the mechanical properties of major arteries are often altered. Aortic stiffness can be noninvasively estimated by measuring pulse wave velocity (PWV). Several methods have been proposed for measuring PWV using velocity-encoded cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR), including transit-time (TT), flow-area (QA), and cross-correlation (XC) methods. However, assessment and comparison of these techniques at high field strength has not yet been performed. In this work, the TT, QA, and XC techniques were clinically tested at 3 Tesla and compared to each other.


METHODS
Fifty cardiovascular patients and six volunteers were scanned to acquire the necessary images. The six volunteer scans were performed twice to test inter-scan reproducibility. Patient images were analyzed using the TT, XC, and QA methods to determine PWV. Two observers analyzed the images to determine inter-observer and intra-observer variabilities. The PWV measurements by the three methods were compared to each other to test inter-method variability. To illustrate the importance of PWV using CMR, the degree of aortic stiffness was assessed using PWV and related to LV dysfunction in five patients with diastolic heart failure patients and five matched volunteers.


RESULTS
The inter-observer and intra-observer variability results showed no bias between the different techniques. The TT and XC results were more reproducible than the QA; the mean (SD) inter-observer/intra-observer PWV differences were -0.12(1.3)/-0.04(0.4) for TT, 0.2(1.3)/0.09(0.9) for XC, and 0.6(1.6)/0.2(1.4) m/s for QA methods, respectively. The correlation coefficients (r) for the inter-observer/intra-observer comparisons were 0.94/0.99, 0.88/0.94, and 0.83/0.92 for the TT, XC, and QA methods, respectively. The inter-scan reproducibility results showed low variability between the repeated scans (mean (SD) PWV difference = -0.02(0.4) m/s and r = 0.96). The inter-method variability results showed strong correlation between the TT and XC measurements, but less correlation with QA: r = 0.95, 0.87, and 0.89, and mean (SD) PWV differences = -0.12(1.0), 0.8(1.7), and 0.65(1.6) m/s for TT-XC, TT-QA, and XC-QA, respectively. Finally, in the group of diastolic heart failure patient, PWV was significantly higher (6.3 +/- 1.9 m/s) than in volunteers (3.5 +/- 1.4 m/s), and the degree of LV diastolic dysfunction showed good correlation with aortic PWV.


CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, while each of the studied methods has its own advantages and disadvantages, at high field strength, the TT and XC methods result in closer and more reproducible aortic PWV measurements, and the associated image processing requires less user interaction, than in the QA method. The choice of the analysis technique depends on the vessel segment geometry and available image quality.
Ibrahim
El-Sayed H
el-SH
Department of Radiology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, Florida, USA. elsayed.ibrahim@jax.ufl.edu
Johnson
Kevin R
KR
Miller
Alan B
AB
Shaffer
Jean M
JM
White
Richard D
RD
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D001011:Aorta / Q000503:physiopathology*; D001783:Blood Flow Velocity; D001794:Blood Pressure; D003187:Compliance; D005260:Female; D006331:Heart Diseases / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000503:physiopathology; D006801:Humans; D007090:Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted; D019028:Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Cine / Q000379:methods*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D015588:Observer Variation; D011237:Predictive Value of Tests; D011673:Pulsatile Flow; D012039:Regional Blood Flow; D015203:Reproducibility of Results
Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10
2868172
J Magn Reson Imaging. 1998 Jul-Aug;8(4):878-88
9702890
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008 Jun;27(6):1382-7
18504758
J Biomed Eng. 1993 May;15(3):221-8
8320981
Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2001 Aug;281(2):H895-902
11454596
Am J Cardiol. 2001 Mar 15;87(6):748-52
11249895
Magn Reson Med. 2006 Oct;56(4):876-83
16947380
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1993 May;160(5):1113-8
8470589
J Hum Hypertens. 2007 Feb;21(2):141-8
17136108
Angiology. 2007 Feb-Mar;58(1):67-74
17351160
J Hypertens. 2010 Jan;28(1):41-50
19809365
Radiology. 1990 Nov;177(2):537-41
2217797
Eur Heart J. 2006 Nov;27(21):2588-605
17000623
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2002;4(4):481-91
12549235
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009 Jul 14;54(3):255-62
19589439
Phys Med Biol. 2000 Jun;45(6):1703-13
10870719
Physiol Rev. 1978 Apr;58(2):397-460
347471
Circ Res. 1990 May;66(5):1413-9
2185904
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2007;9(4):645-51
17578719
Magn Reson Med. 1999 Dec;42(6):1048-60
10571926
J Magn Reson Imaging. 1993 May-Jun;3(3):443-50
8324302
J Appl Physiol (1985). 1993 Jan;74(1):492-7
8444734
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2002 Apr;15(4):418-28
11948831
Ann Biomed Eng. 2002 Sep;30(8):1033-45
12449764
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2006 Nov;98(5):516-23
17013591
Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol. 2009 Dec;154(4):429-36
19689927
Circulation. 2003 Feb 11;107(5):714-20
12578874
Hypertension. 2009 Aug;54(2):421-6
19506096
Psychophysiology. 1976 Jan;13(1):86-90
1244636
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009 Sep;30(3):521-6
19711407
J Magn Reson Imaging. 1995 Nov-Dec;5(6):635-9
8748479
Eur Heart J. 2004 Aug;25(16):1376-7
15321695
Magn Reson Med. 2002 Apr;47(4):649-54
11948725
Hypertension. 1997 Sep;30(3 Pt 2):654-9
9322999
Magn Reson Med. 2002 Jul;48(1):115-21
12111938
J Card Fail. 2009 Oct;15(8):658-64
19786254
Hypertension. 2007 Feb;49(2):317-21
17200433
Hypertension. 2009 Apr;53(4):668-73
19237680
Am J Cardiol. 2003 Jan 15;91(2):195-9
12521634
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009 Aug;30(2):286-91
19629988
Psychophysiology. 1976 Sep;13(5):488-93
972973
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007 May;25(5):974-81
17457797