Traveling Volunteers

BACKGROUND: Implementation of four-dimensional flow magnetic resonance (4D Flow MR) in clinical routine requires awareness of confounders.

PURPOSE: To investigate inter-vendor comparability of 4D Flow MR derived aortic hemodynamic parameters, assess scan-rescan repeatability, and intra- and interobserver reproducibility.

STUDY TYPE: Prospective multicenter study.

POPULATION: Fifteen healthy volunteers (age 24.5 ± 5.3 years, 8 females).

FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3 T, vendor-provided and clinically used 4D Flow MR sequences of each site.

ASSESSMENT: Forward flow volume, peak velocity, average, and maximum wall shear stress (WSS) were assessed via nine planes (P1-P9) throughout the thoracic aorta by a single observer (AD, 2 years of experience). Inter-vendor comparability as well as scan-rescan, intra- and interobserver reproducibility were examined.

STATISTICAL TESTS: Equivalence was tested setting the 95% confidence interval of intraobserver and scan-rescan difference as the limit of clinical acceptable disagreement. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots were used for scan-rescan reproducibility and intra- and interobserver agreement. A P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. ICCs ≥ 0.75 indicated strong correlation (>0.9: excellent, 0.75-0.9: good).

RESULTS: Ten volunteers finished the complete study successfully. 4D flow derived hemodynamic parameters between scanners of three different vendors are not equivalent exceeding the equivalence range. P3-P9 differed significantly between all three scanners for forward flow (59.1 ± 13.1 mL vs. 68.1 ± 12.0 mL vs. 55.4 ± 13.1 mL), maximum WSS (1842.0 ± 190.5 mPa vs. 1969.5 ± 398.7 mPa vs. 1500.6 ± 247.2 mPa), average WSS (1400.0 ± 149.3 mPa vs. 1322.6 ± 211.8 mPa vs. 1142.0 ± 198.5 mPa), and peak velocity between scanners I vs. III (114.7 ± 12.6 cm/s vs. 101.3 ± 15.6 cm/s). Overall, the plane location at the sinotubular junction (P1) presented most inter-vendor stability (forward: 78.5 ± 15.1 mL vs. 80.3 ± 15.4 mL vs. 79.5 ± 19.9 mL [P = 0.368]; peak: 126.4 ± 16.7 cm/s vs. 119.7 ± 13.6 cm/s vs. 111.2 ± 22.6 cm/s [P = 0.097]). Scan-rescan reproducibility and intra- and interobserver variability were good to excellent (ICC ≥ 0.8) with best agreement for forward flow (ICC ≥ 0.98).

DATA CONCLUSION: The clinical protocol used at three different sites led to differences in hemodynamic parameters assessed by 4D flow.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 2.