Compressed Sensing–Accelerated Cartesian Real‐Time Phase Contrast
MRI
With Shared Velocity Encoding: A Clinical Performance Evaluation
Gang Yin, Yan Liang, Mi Li, Xinling Yang, Lin Chen, Kai Yang, Chen Cui, Xiuyu Chen, Jing An, Giese Daniel, Ning Jin, Shihua Zhao, Minjie Lu ABSTRACT
Background
Conventional segmented phase contrast (PC) MRI is the clinical reference standard for cardiovascular hemodynamic quantification, but prolonged acquisition times, mandatory breath‐holding, and susceptibility to arrhythmia limit its utility in vulnerable populations.
Purpose
To validate the clinical performance of compressed sensing–accelerated real‐time (CSRT) PC MRI with shared velocity encoding (SVE) for fast, free‐breathing cardiac flow assessment.
Study Type
Prospective.
Population
63 patients (46 male/17 female, mean age 51.5 ± 15.1 years) with diverse cardiac disease.
Field Strength/Sequence
3.0 T; single‐shot RF‐spoiled gradient echo sequence with SVE (free‐breathing CSRT PC MRI) and velocity encoded segmented gradient echo sequence (breath‐hold routine segmented (RS) PC MRI).
Assessment
Hemodynamic parameters—peak velocity, peak flow rate, net flow rate, and peak mean velocity—were measured at the sinotubular junction plane for both CSRT and RS datasets. Scan time of the two sequences was recorded.
Statistical Tests
Pearson/Spearman correlation analysis, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Bland–Altman analysis, paired t ‐test/Wilcoxon test. A p value < 0.05 was considered significant.
Results
RS acquisition time was 16.0 ± 2.3 s; total imaging time including breath‐hold instructions was 26.0 ± 2.3 s, whereas CSRT acquisition time was 10.0 s, yielding a statistically significant difference in scan duration. All hemodynamic parameters demonstrated strong significant correlation between CSRT PC and RS PC MRI ( r ≥ 0.89) and good‐to‐excellent inter‐method agreement (ICC ≥ 0.87). CSRT PC yielded significantly lower values for peak velocity (bias = −16.72 ± 11.48 cm/s [−13.31% ± 9.68%]), peak flow rate (bias = −36.28 ± 35.06 mL/s [−9.18% ± 8.98%]), and peak mean velocity (bias = −6.49 ± 7.06 cm/s [−11.02% ± 13.14%]) relative to the RS, but net flow rate was not significantly different between methods (bias = 0.15% ± 0.60 L/min [4.16% ± 17.28%, p = 0.058]).
Data Conclusions
CSRT PC provided satisfactory agreement with conventional RS PC while shortening scan time and enabling free‐breathing acquisition.
Evidence Level
1.
Technical Efficacy
Stage 1.