4D Flow MRI showed moderate-to-strong scan-rescan agreement for most mitral and pulmonary venous flow parameters (ICC 0.51-0.92, p<0.05), but substantial variability restricts clinical use.
Cross-Sectional (n=21)
What is the scan-rescan reproducibility of 4D Flow MRI-derived diastolic function parameters in healthy volunteers?
4D Flow MRI shows acceptable reproducibility for selected diastolic flow parameters, but substantial variability in key indices like E/e' currently limits its clinical applicability.
Effect estimate: ICC 0.51-0.92
p-value: p=<0.05
Accurate assessment of mitral valve (MV) and pulmonary vein (PV) flow velocities is important for left ventricular diastolic function testing. This study investigated the scan–rescan reproducibility of 4D Flow MRI-assessed MV and PV flow velocities in 21 healthy volunteers (25 ± 4 years). Participants underwent repeated whole-heart 3T 4D Flow MRI involving repositioning and different respiratory compensation strategies (motion-uncompensated free-breathing vs. respiratory motion-compensated navigator gating). MV parameters (net flow volume (NFV), E-wave velocity, A-wave velocity, E/A ratio, E deceleration time (DT), annular e’ velocity, E/e’ ratio) and PV parameters (NFV, S-wave velocity, D-wave velocity, S/D ratio, atrial reversal (AR) wave velocity) were derived from velocity–time curves and compared using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), Bland–Altman analysis, and Pearson’s correlation (r). Results showed significant moderate-to-strong scan–rescan agreement and correlation for most MV and PV parameters (ICC = 0.51–0.92; r = 0.51–0.92; all p < 0.05), except E DT, e’ velocity, E/e’ ratio, PV NFV, and AR velocity (ICC = −0.13–0.47; r = −0.14–0.47). Subanalysis of respiratory motion strategies showed moderate-to-strong agreement and correlation for MV and PV parameters (ICC = 0.61–0.99; r = 0.52–0.99; all p < 0.05 excluding E DT), except E DT (ICC = 0.44) and PV NFV (ICC = 0.46; r = 0.46). While intraobserver agreement was mostly moderate-to-excellent (ICC = 0.58–0.97; ICC = 0.41 for E DT), interobserver agreement was poor for E DT and PV parameters (ICC = −0.12–0.34). Overall, 4D Flow MRI shows acceptable reproducibility for selected diastolic flow parameters, particularly mitral inflow indices, but substantial variability and limited robustness for key indices currently restrict its clinical applicability.
Braekt et al. (Fri,) conducted a cross-sectional in Healthy volunteers (n=21). 4D Flow MRI vs. Scan-rescan and different respiratory compensation strategies was evaluated on Scan-rescan reproducibility of MV and PV flow velocities (ICC 0.51-0.92, p=<0.05). 4D Flow MRI showed moderate-to-strong scan-rescan agreement for most mitral and pulmonary venous flow parameters (ICC 0.51-0.92, p<0.05), but substantial variability restricts clinical use.