Comparing 3D and 2D Heart Flow Measurements
Author Information
Author(s): Brix Lau, Ringgaard Steffen, Rasmusson Allan, Sørensen Thomas Sangild, Kim W Yong
Primary Institution: Aarhus University Hospital
Hypothesis
How do flow measurements from 3D and 2D cardiovascular magnetic resonance techniques compare?
Conclusion
Flow measurements derived from the 3D and 2D acquisitions were comparable.
Supporting Evidence
- The 3D technique overestimated flow by approximately 5% in vitro.
- In vivo, 2D and 3D techniques yielded similar volumetric flow curves.
- Each in vivo 3D acquisition took about 8 minutes or more.
Takeaway
This study looked at two ways to measure blood flow in the heart, and found that both methods give similar results, even though one takes longer to do.
Methodology
The study compared flow measurements from 3D and 2D CMR techniques in healthy volunteers using a 1.5 T Phillips Intera CMR system.
Potential Biases
Potential systematic errors in 3D flow measurements due to calibration and flow dynamics differences.
Limitations
The 3D technique may overestimate flow rates and has lower spatial resolution compared to 2D methods.
Participant Demographics
10 healthy volunteers (2 women and 8 men; age 29 ± 7 years).
Statistical Information
P-Value
0.004
Statistical Significance
p<0.05
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website