## Abstract Pulse‐wave velocity is an index of arterial stiffness, which is a strong indicator of cardiovascular risk. We present a high‐speed technique that generates time‐resolved complex difference signal intensity simultaneously in the ascending and descending aorta from velocity‐encoded projec
Validation and reproducibility of aortic pulse wave velocity as assessed with velocity-encoded MRI
✍ Scribed by Heynric B. Grotenhuis; Jos J.M. Westenberg; Paul Steendijk; Rob J. van der Geest; Jaap Ottenkamp; Jeroen J. Bax; J. Wouter Jukema; Albert de Roos
- Publisher
- John Wiley and Sons
- Year
- 2009
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 182 KB
- Volume
- 30
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 1053-1807
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
✦ Synopsis
Abstract
Purpose
To validate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) assessment of aortic pulse wave velocity (PWV~MRI~) with PWV determined from invasive intra‐aortic pressure measurements (PWV~INV~) and to test the reproducibility of the measurement by MRI.
Materials and Methods
PWV~MRI~ was compared with PWV~INV~ in 18 nonconsecutive patients scheduled for catheterization for suspected coronary artery disease. Reproducibility of PWV~MRI~ was tested in 10 healthy volunteers who underwent repeated measurement of PWV~MRI~ at a single occasion. Velocity‐encoded MRI was performed on all participants to assess PWV~MRI~ in the total aorta (Ao~total~), the proximal aorta (Ao~prox~), and the distal aorta (Ao~dist~).
Results
The results are expressed as mean ± SD, Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC), and intraclass correlation (ICC). Good agreement between PWV~MRI~ and PWV~INV~ was found for Ao~total~ (6.5 ± 1.1 m/s vs. 6.1 ± 0.8 m/s; PCC = 0.53), Ao~prox~ (6.5 ± 1.3 m/s vs. 6.2 ± 1.1 m/s; PCC = 0.69), and for Ao~dist~ (6.9 ± 1.1 m/s vs. 6.1 ± 1.0 m/s; PCC = 0.71). Reproducibility of PWV~MRI~ was high for Ao~total~ (4.3 ± 0.5 m/s vs. 4.6 ± 0.7 m/s; ICC = 0.90, P < 0.01), Ao~prox~ (4.3 ± 0.9 m/s vs. 4.7 ± 1.0 m/s; ICC = 0.87, P < 0.01), and Ao~dist~ (4.3 ± 0.6 m/s vs. 4.4 ± 0.8 m/s; ICC = 0.92, P < 0.01).
Conclusion
MRI assessment of aortic pulse wave velocity shows good agreement with invasive pressure measurements and can be determined with high reproducibility. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2009;30:521–526. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
📜 SIMILAR VOLUMES
## Abstract ## Purpose To investigate the feasibility of assessing, noninvasively, aortic pulse pressure (APP) and pulse wave velocity (PWV) in the ascending aorta of young adults by means of velocity‐encoded magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. ## Materials and Methods In a series of 11 healthy vol
## Abstract ## Purpose: To study age‐related change in aortic stiffness in patients with Marfan syndrome (MFS) versus healthy volunteers using velocity‐encoded (VE) MRI. ## Materials and Methods: Twenty‐five MFS patients (age range, 18–63 years; mean age 36 ± 14 years, 13 men) and 25 age‐/gender
## Abstract ## Purpose: To evaluate accuracy and reproducibility of flow velocity and volume measurements in a phantom and in human coronary arteries using breathhold velocity‐encoded (VE) MRI with spiral __k__‐space sampling at 3 Tesla. ## Materials and Methods: Flow velocity assessment was per
## Abstract ## Purpose To evaluate aortic elasticity with MRI on young asymptomatic individuals with mutation of the smooth muscle myosin heavy chain in whom aortic enlargement is not present. ## Materials and Methods Aortic compliance, aortic distensibility, and pulse wave velocity (PWV) were s
## Abstract ## Purpose To verify whether wall shear stress (WSS) can be assessed in a reproducible manner using automatic model‐based segmentation of phase‐contrast MR images by determination of flow volume and maximum flow velocity (Vmax) in cross‐sections of these vessels. ## Materials and Meth