Comprehensive Analysis of Relative Pressure Estimation Methods Utilizing 4D Flow MRI
Fuente:
arXiv
Enregistré dans:
| Auteurs principaux: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Publié: |
2025
|
| Sujets: | |
| Accès en ligne: | |
| Tags: |
Ajouter un tag
Pas de tags, Soyez le premier à ajouter un tag!
|
| _version_ | 1866916731157479424 |
|---|---|
| author | Hardy, Brandon Zimmermann, Judith Lechner, Vincent Bonini, Mia Sotelo, Julio A. Burris, Nicholas S. Ennis, Daniel B. Marlevi, David Nordsletten, David A. |
| author_facet | Hardy, Brandon Zimmermann, Judith Lechner, Vincent Bonini, Mia Sotelo, Julio A. Burris, Nicholas S. Ennis, Daniel B. Marlevi, David Nordsletten, David A. |
| contents | Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can estimate three-dimensional (3D) time-resolved relative pressure fields using 4D-flow MRI, thereby providing rich pressure field information. Clinical alternatives include catheterization and Doppler echocardiography, which only provide one-dimensional pressure drops. The accuracy of one-dimensional pressure drops derived from 4D-flow has been explored previously, but additional work is needed to evaluate the accuracy of 3D relative pressure field estimates. This work presents an analysis of three state-of-the-art relative pressure estimators: virtual Work-Energy Relative Pressure (vWERP), the Pressure Poisson Estimator (PPE), and the Stokes Estimator (STE). The spatiotemporal characteristics and sensitivity to noise were determined in silico. Estimators were then validated using a type B aortic dissection (TBAD) flow phantom with varying tear geometry and twelve catheter pressure measurements. Finally, the performance of each estimator was evaluated across eight patient cases. In silico pressure field errors were lower in STE compared to PPE, although PPE pressures were less noise sensitive. High velocity gradients and low spatial resolution contributed most significantly to local variations in 3D pressure field errors. Low temporal resolution lead to systematic underestimation of highly transient peak pressure events. In the flow phantom analysis, vWERP was the most accurate method, followed by STE and PPE. Each pressure estimator was strongly correlated with ground truth pressure values, despite the tendency to underestimate peak pressures. Patient case results demonstrated that each pressure estimator could be feasibly integrated into a clinical workflow. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2503_02847 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Comprehensive Analysis of Relative Pressure Estimation Methods Utilizing 4D Flow MRI Hardy, Brandon Zimmermann, Judith Lechner, Vincent Bonini, Mia Sotelo, Julio A. Burris, Nicholas S. Ennis, Daniel B. Marlevi, David Nordsletten, David A. Fluid Dynamics Biological Physics Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can estimate three-dimensional (3D) time-resolved relative pressure fields using 4D-flow MRI, thereby providing rich pressure field information. Clinical alternatives include catheterization and Doppler echocardiography, which only provide one-dimensional pressure drops. The accuracy of one-dimensional pressure drops derived from 4D-flow has been explored previously, but additional work is needed to evaluate the accuracy of 3D relative pressure field estimates. This work presents an analysis of three state-of-the-art relative pressure estimators: virtual Work-Energy Relative Pressure (vWERP), the Pressure Poisson Estimator (PPE), and the Stokes Estimator (STE). The spatiotemporal characteristics and sensitivity to noise were determined in silico. Estimators were then validated using a type B aortic dissection (TBAD) flow phantom with varying tear geometry and twelve catheter pressure measurements. Finally, the performance of each estimator was evaluated across eight patient cases. In silico pressure field errors were lower in STE compared to PPE, although PPE pressures were less noise sensitive. High velocity gradients and low spatial resolution contributed most significantly to local variations in 3D pressure field errors. Low temporal resolution lead to systematic underestimation of highly transient peak pressure events. In the flow phantom analysis, vWERP was the most accurate method, followed by STE and PPE. Each pressure estimator was strongly correlated with ground truth pressure values, despite the tendency to underestimate peak pressures. Patient case results demonstrated that each pressure estimator could be feasibly integrated into a clinical workflow. |
| title | Comprehensive Analysis of Relative Pressure Estimation Methods Utilizing 4D Flow MRI |
| topic | Fluid Dynamics Biological Physics |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.02847 |