Top

Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine

Published in:

01-08-2015 | Research Article

Comparing velocity and fluid shear stress in a stenotic phantom with steady flow: phase-contrast MRI, particle image velocimetry and computational fluid dynamics

Author: Iman Khodarahmi

Published in: Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine | Issue 4/2015

Abstract

Object

This study aims to validate phase-contrast magnetic resonance imaging (PC-MRI) measurements of a steady flow through a severe stenotic phantom using particle image velocimetry (PIV) and computational fluid dynamics (CFD).

Materials and methods

The study was performed in an axisymmetric 87 % area stenosis model using an inlet Reynolds number (Re) of 160, corresponding to a jet Re of 444. Velocity patterns and estimated fluid shear stresses from three modalities were analyzed and compared qualitatively and quantitatively.

Results

Visual analysis via contour subtraction and Bland–Altman plots showed good agreement for flow velocities and less agreement for maximum shear stress (MSS). The Pearson’s coefficients of correlation between PC-MRI and PIV were 0.97 for the velocity field and 0.82 for the MSS. The corresponding parameters between PC-MRI and CFD were 0.96 and 0.84, respectively.

Conclusion

Findings indicate that PC-MRI can be implemented to estimate velocity flow fields and MSS; however, this method is not sufficiently accurate to quantify the MSS at regions of high shear rate.

Kasapis C, Gurm HS (2009) Current approach to the diagnosis and treatment of femoral-popliteal arterial disease. A systematic review. Curr Cardiol Rev 5(4):296–311. doi:10.2174/157340309789317823 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Faxon DP, Fuster V, Libby P, Beckman JA, Hiatt WR, Thompson RW, Topper JN, Annex BH, Rundback JH, Fabunmi RP, Robertson RM, Loscalzo J (2004) Atherosclerotic vascular disease conference: writing group III: pathophysiology. Circulation 109(21):2617–2625. doi:10.1161/01.CIR.0000128520.37674.EF PubMedCrossRef

Davies PF (1995) Flow-mediated endothelial mechanotransduction. Physiol Rev 75(3):519–560PubMedCentralPubMed

Kroll MH, Hellums JD, McIntire LV, Schafer AI, Moake JL (1996) Platelets and shear stress. Blood 88(5):1525–1541PubMed

Nesbitt WS, Westein E, Tovar-Lopez FJ, Tolouei E, Mitchell A, Fu J, Carberry J, Fouras A, Jackson SP (2009) A shear gradient-dependent platelet aggregation mechanism drives thrombus formation. Nat Med 15(6):665–673. doi:10.1038/nm.1955 PubMedCrossRef

Pelc NJ, Herfkens RJ, Shimakawa A, Enzmann DR (1991) Phase contrast cine magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Q 7(4):229–254PubMed

Pelc NJ, Sommer FG, Li KC, Brosnan TJ, Herfkens RJ, Enzmann DR (1994) Quantitative magnetic resonance flow imaging. Magn Reson Q 10(3):125–147PubMed

Gatehouse PD, Keegan J, Crowe LA, Masood S, Mohiaddin RH, Kreitner KF, Firmin DN (2005) Applications of phase-contrast flow and velocity imaging in cardiovascular MRI. Eur Radiol 15(10):2172–2184. doi:10.1007/s00330-005-2829-3 PubMedCrossRef

Frydrychowicz A, Stalder AF, Russe MF, Bock J, Bauer S, Harloff A, Berger A, Langer M, Hennig J, Markl M (2009) Three-dimensional analysis of segmental wall shear stress in the aorta by flow-sensitive four-dimensional-MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 30(1):77–84. doi:10.1002/jmri.21790 PubMedCrossRef

10.

Robertson MB, Kohler U, Hoskins PR, Marshall I (2001) Quantitative analysis of PC MRI velocity maps: pulsatile flow in cylindrical vessels. Magn Reson Imaging 19(5):685–695PubMedCrossRef

11.

Harloff A, Nussbaumer A, Bauer S, Stalder AF, Frydrychowicz A, Weiller C, Hennig J, Markl M (2010) In vivo assessment of wall shear stress in the atherosclerotic aorta using flow-sensitive 4D MRI. Magn Reson Med 63(6):1529–1536. doi:10.1002/mrm.22383 PubMedCrossRef

12.

Boussel L, Rayz V, Martin A, Acevedo-Bolton G, Lawton MT, Higashida R, Smith WS, Young WL, Saloner D (2009) Phase-contrast magnetic resonance imaging measurements in intracranial aneurysms in vivo of flow patterns, velocity fields, and wall shear stress: comparison with computational fluid dynamics. Magn Reson Med 61(2):409–417. doi:10.1002/mrm.21861 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

13.

Marshall I, Zhao S, Papathanasopoulou P, Hoskins P, Xu Y (2004) MRI and CFD studies of pulsatile flow in healthy and stenosed carotid bifurcation models. J Biomech 37(5):679–687. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2003.09.032 PubMedCrossRef

14.

Moser KW, Kutter EC, Georgiadis IG, Buckius RO, Morris HD, Torczynski JR (2000) Velocity measurements of flow through a step stenosis using magnetic resonance imaging. Exp Fluids 29(5):438–447CrossRef

15.

Long Q, Xu XY, Collins MW, Griffith TM, Bourne M (1998) The combination of magnetic resonance angiography and computational fluid dynamics: a critical review. Crit Rev Biomed Eng 26(4):227–274PubMedCrossRef

16.

Stewart SC, Paterson E, Burgreen G, Hariharan P, Giarra M, Reddy V, Day S, Manning K, Deutsch S, Berman M, Myers M, Malinauskas R (2012) Assessment of CFD performance in simulations of an idealized medical device: results of FDA’s first computational interlaboratory study. Cardiovasc Eng Technol 3(2):139–160. doi:10.1007/s13239-012-0087-5 CrossRef

17.

Hollnagel DI, Summers PE, Kollias SS, Poulikakos D (2007) Laser Doppler velocimetry (LDV) and 3D phase-contrast magnetic resonance angiography (PC-MRA) velocity measurements: validation in an anatomically accurate cerebral artery aneurysm model with steady flow. J Magn Reson Imaging 26(6):1493–1505. doi:10.1002/jmri.21179 PubMedCrossRef

18.

Hollnagel DI, Summers PE, Poulikakos D, Kollias SS (2009) Comparative velocity investigations in cerebral arteries and aneurysms: 3D phase-contrast MR angiography, laser Doppler velocimetry and computational fluid dynamics. NMR Biomed 22(8):795–808. doi:10.1002/nbm.1389 PubMedCrossRef

19.

Siegel JM Jr, Oshinski JN, Pettigrew RI, Ku DN (1996) The accuracy of magnetic resonance phase velocity measurements in stenotic flow. J Biomech 29(12):1665–1672PubMedCrossRef

20.

Ku DN, Biancheri CL, Pettigrew RI, Peifer JW, Markou CP, Engels H (1990) Evaluation of magnetic resonance velocimetry for steady flow. J Biomech Eng 112(4):464–472PubMedCrossRef

21.

Kitajima HD, Sundareswaran KS, Teisseyre TZ, Astary GW, Parks WJ, Skrinjar O, Oshinski JN, Yoganathan AP (2008) Comparison of particle image velocimetry and phase contrast MRI in a patient-specific extracardiac total cavopulmonary connection. J Biomech Eng 130(4):041004. doi:10.1115/1.2900725 PubMedCrossRef

22.

van Ooij P, Guedon A, Poelma C, Schneiders J, Rutten MC, Marquering HA, Majoie CB, VanBavel E, Nederveen AJ (2012) Complex flow patterns in a real-size intracranial aneurysm phantom: phase contrast MRI compared with particle image velocimetry and computational fluid dynamics. NMR Biomed 25(1):14–26. doi:10.1002/nbm.1706 PubMedCrossRef

23.

Yang C, Canton G, Yuan C, Ferguson M, Hatsukami TS, Tang D (2010) Advanced human carotid plaque progression correlates positively with flow shear stress using follow-up scan data: an in vivo MRI multi-patient 3D FSI study. J Biomech 43(13):2530–2538. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.05.018 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

24.

Yang C, Canton G, Yuan C, Ferguson M, Hatsukami TS, Tang D (2011) Impact of flow rates in a cardiac cycle on correlations between advanced human carotid plaque progression and mechanical flow shear stress and plaque wall stress. Biomed Eng Online 10:61. doi:10.1186/1475-925X-10-61 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

25.

Teng Z, Canton G, Yuan C, Ferguson M, Yang C, Huang X, Zheng J, Woodard PK, Tang D (2010) 3D critical plaque wall stress is a better predictor of carotid plaque rupture sites than flow shear stress: an in vivo MRI-based 3D FSI study. J Biomech Eng 132(3):031007. doi:10.1115/1.4001028 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

26.

Khodarahmi I, Shakeri M, Kotys-Traughber M, Fischer S, Sharp MK, Amini AA (2014) In vitro validation of flow measurement with phase contrast MRI at 3 tesla using stereoscopic particle image velocimetry and stereoscopic particle image velocimetry-based computational fluid dynamics. J Magn Reson Imaging 39(6):1477–1485. doi:10.1002/jmri.24322 PubMedCrossRef

27.

Khodarahmi I, Shakeri M, Sharp M, Amini AA (2010) Using PIV to determine relative pressures in a stenotic phantom under steady flow based on the pressure-poisson equation. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2010:2594–2597. doi:10.1109/IEMBS.2010.5626676 PubMed

28.

Khodarahmi I (2012) Flow and pressure measurement using phase-contrast MRI experiments in stenotic phantom models. University of Louisville, Louisville

29.

Khodarahmi I, Shakeri M, Kotys-Traughber M, Fischer S, Sharp MK, Amini A (2012) Accuracy of flow measurement with phase contrast MRI in a stenotic phantom: where should flow be measured? J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 14(Suppl 1):P219. doi:10.1186/1532-429X-14-S1-P219 PubMedCentralCrossRef

30.

Bar-Meir G (2009) Basics of fluid mechanics. University Press of Florida, Gainesville

31.

Rayz VL, Boussel L, Lawton MT, Acevedo-Bolton G, Ge L, Young WL, Higashida RT, Saloner D (2008) Numerical modeling of the flow in intracranial aneurysms: prediction of regions prone to thrombus formation. Ann Biomed Eng 36(11):1793–1804. doi:10.1007/s10439-008-9561-5 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

32.

Kefayati S, Poepping TL (2010) 3-D flow characterization and shear stress in a stenosed carotid artery bifurcation model using stereoscopic PIV technique. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2010:3386–3389. doi:10.1109/IEMBS.2010.5627933 PubMed

33.

Nesbitt E, Schmidt-Trucksass A, Il’yasov KA, Weber H, Huonker M, Laubenberger J, Keul J, Hennig J, Langer M (2000) Assessment of arterial blood flow characteristics in normal and atherosclerotic vessels with the fast Fourier flow method. MAGMA 10(1):27–34PubMedCrossRef

34.

Versluis B, Nelemans PJ, Brans R, Wildberger JE, Schurink GW, Leiner T, Backes WH (2014) Functional MRI in peripheral arterial disease: arterial peak flow versus ankle-brachial index. PLoS ONE 9(2):e88471. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0088471 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

35.

Mohajer K, Zhang H, Gurell D, Ersoy H, Ho B, Kent KC, Prince MR (2006) Superficial femoral artery occlusive disease severity correlates with MR cine phase-contrast flow measurements. J Magn Reson Imaging 23(3):355–360. doi:10.1002/jmri.20514 PubMedCrossRef

Title: Comparing velocity and fluid shear stress in a stenotic phantom with steady flow: phase-contrast MRI, particle image velocimetry and computational fluid dynamics
Author: Iman Khodarahmi
Publication date: 01-08-2015
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine / Issue 4/2015
Print ISSN: 0968-5243
Electronic ISSN: 1352-8661
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10334-014-0476-x

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Comparing velocity and fluid shear stress in a stenotic phantom with steady flow: phase-contrast MRI, particle image velocimetry and computational fluid dynamics

Abstract

Object

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Object

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2015

Single-channel, box-shaped, monopole-type antenna for B1+ field manipulation in conjunction with the traveling-wave concept in 9.4 T MRI

Velocity mapping of the aortic flow at 9.4 T in healthy mice and mice with induced heart failure using time-resolved three-dimensional phase-contrast MRI (4D PC MRI)

Phase-corrected bipolar gradients in multi-echo gradient-echo sequences for quantitative susceptibility mapping

Fast PRF-based MR thermometry using double-echo EPI: in vivo comparison in a clinical hyperthermia setting

Automatic segmentation of subcutaneous mouse tumors by multiparametric MR analysis based on endogenous contrast

Improving the robustness of 3D turbo spin echo imaging to involuntary motion