Myocardial motion analysis based on an optical flow method using tagged MR images
Radiological Physics and Technology, April 2018
Daiki Tabata, Haruo Isoda, Kaori Kato, Hiroki Matsubara, Takafumi Kosugi, Takashi Kosugi, Masaki Terada, Atsushi Fukuyama, Yoshiaki Komori, Shinji Naganawa
We developed a method of velocimetry based on an optical flow method using quantitative analyses of tagged magnetic resonance (MR) images (tagged MR-optical flow velocimetry, tMR-O velocimetry). The purpose of our study was to examine the accuracy of measurement of the proposed tMR-O velocimetry. We performed retrospective pseudo-electrocardiogram (ECG) gating tagged cine MR imaging on a rotating phantom. We optimized imaging parameters for tagged MR imaging, and validated the accuracy of tMR-O velocimetry. Our results indicated that the difference between the reference velocities and the computed velocities measured using optimal imaging parameters was less than 1%. In addition, we performed tMR-O velocimetry and echocardiography on 10 healthy volunteers, for four sections of the heart (apical, midventricular, and basal sections aligned with the short-axis, and a four-chamber section aligned with the long-axis), and obtained radial and longitudinal myocardial velocities in these sections. We compared the myocardial velocities obtained using tMR-O velocimetry with those obtained using echocardiography. Our results showed good agreement between tMR-O velocimetry and echocardiography in the radial myocardial velocities in three short-axial sections and longitudinal myocardial velocities on the midventricular portion of the four-chamber section in the long-axis. In the study conducted on the rotating phantom, tMR-O velocimetry showed high accuracy; moreover, in the healthy volunteers, the myocardial velocities obtained using tMR-O velocimetry were relatively similar to those obtained using echocardiography. In conclusion, tMR-O velocimetry is a potentially feasible method for analyzing myocardial motion in the human heart.
|Members of the public||1||100%|
|Readers by professional status||Count||As %|
|Student > Ph. D. Student||1||50%|
|Readers by discipline||Count||As %|