Validation of 4D Flow based relative pressure maps in aortic flows

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorNolte, David
dc.contributor.authorUrbina, Jesus
dc.contributor.authorSotelo, Julio
dc.contributor.authorSok, Leo
dc.contributor.authorMontalba, Cristian
dc.contributor.authorValverde, Israel
dc.contributor.authorOsses, Axel
dc.contributor.authorUribe, Sergio
dc.contributor.authorBertoglio, Cristobal
dc.date.accessioned2025-01-20T22:06:56Z
dc.date.available2025-01-20T22:06:56Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.description.abstractWhile the clinical gold standard for pressure difference measurements is invasive catheterization, 4D Flow MRI is a promising tool for enabling a non-invasive quantification, by linking highly spatially resolved velocity measurements with pressure differences via the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations. In this work we provide a validation and comparison with phantom and clinical patient data of pressure difference maps estimators. We compare the classical Pressure Poisson Estimator (PPE) and the new Stokes Estimator (STE) against catheter pressure measurements under a variety of stenosis severities and flow intensities. Specifically, we use several 4D Flow data sets of realistic aortic phantoms with different anatomic and hemodynamic severities and two patients with aortic coarctation. The phantom data sets are enriched by subsampling to lower resolutions, modification of the segmentation and addition of synthetic noise, in order to study the sensitivity of the pressure difference estimators to these factors. Overall, the STE method yields more accurate results than the PPE method compared to catheterization data. The superiority of the STE becomes more evident at increasing Reynolds numbers with a better capacity of capturing pressure gradients in strongly convective flow regimes. The results indicate an improved robustness of the STE method with respect to variation in lumen segmentation. However, with heuristic removal of the wall-voxels, the PPE can reach a comparable accuracy for lower Reynolds' numbers. (c) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ )
dc.fuente.origenWOS
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.media.2021.102195
dc.identifier.eissn1361-8423
dc.identifier.issn1361-8415
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2021.102195
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorio.uc.cl/handle/11534/94228
dc.identifier.wosidWOS:000704358800013
dc.language.isoen
dc.revistaMedical image analysis
dc.rightsacceso restringido
dc.subject4D Flow
dc.subjectPressure difference
dc.subjectCatheter
dc.subjectClinical and experimental validation
dc.subject.ods03 Good Health and Well-being
dc.subject.odspa03 Salud y bienestar
dc.titleValidation of 4D Flow based relative pressure maps in aortic flows
dc.typeartículo
dc.volumen74
sipa.indexWOS
sipa.trazabilidadWOS;2025-01-12
Files
Collections
Artículos de revistas