TY - JOUR
T1 - A comparison of phase unwrapping methods in velocity-encoded MRI for aortic flows
AU - Löcke, Miriam
AU - Garay Labra, Jeremias Esteban
AU - Franco, Pamela
AU - Uribe, Sergio
AU - Bertoglio, Cristóbal
N1 - Funding Information:
Cristóbal Bertoglio and Miriam Löcke acknowledge the funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No. 852544 – CardioZoom).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 The Authors. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.
PY - 2023/11
Y1 - 2023/11
N2 - Purpose: The phase of a MRI signal is used to encode the velocity of blood flow. Phase unwrapping artifacts may appear when aiming to improve the velocity-to-noise ratio (VNR) of the measured velocity field. This study aims to compare various unwrapping algorithms on ground-truth synthetic data generated using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations. Methods: We compare four different phase unwrapping algorithms on two different synthetic datasets of four-dimensional flow MRI and 26 datasets of 2D PC-MRI acquisitions including the ascending and descending aorta. The synthetic datasets are constructed using CFD simulations of an aorta with a coarctation, with different levels of spatiotemporal resolutions and noise. The error of the unwrapped images was assessed by comparison against the ground truth velocity field in the synthetic data and dual-VENC reconstructions in the in vivo data. Results: Using the unwrapping algorithms, we were able to remove aliased voxels in the data almost entirely, reducing the L2-error compared to the ground truth by 50%–80%. Results indicated that the best choice of algorithm depend on the spatiotemporal resolution and noise level of the dataset. Temporal unwrapping is most successful with a high temporal and low spatial resolution ((Figure presented.) ms, (Figure presented.) mm), reducing the L2-error by 70%–85%, while Laplacian unwrapping performs better with a lower temporal or better spatial resolution ((Figure presented.) ms, (Figure presented.) mm), especially for signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) 12 as opposed to SNR 15, with an error reduction of 55%–85% compared to the 50%–75% achieved by the Temporal method. The differences in performance between the methods are statistically significant. Conclusions: The temporal method and spatiotemporal Laplacian method provide the best results, with the spatiotemporal Laplacian being more robust. However, single- (Figure presented.) methods only situationally and not generally reach the performance of dual- (Figure presented.) unwrapping methods.
AB - Purpose: The phase of a MRI signal is used to encode the velocity of blood flow. Phase unwrapping artifacts may appear when aiming to improve the velocity-to-noise ratio (VNR) of the measured velocity field. This study aims to compare various unwrapping algorithms on ground-truth synthetic data generated using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations. Methods: We compare four different phase unwrapping algorithms on two different synthetic datasets of four-dimensional flow MRI and 26 datasets of 2D PC-MRI acquisitions including the ascending and descending aorta. The synthetic datasets are constructed using CFD simulations of an aorta with a coarctation, with different levels of spatiotemporal resolutions and noise. The error of the unwrapped images was assessed by comparison against the ground truth velocity field in the synthetic data and dual-VENC reconstructions in the in vivo data. Results: Using the unwrapping algorithms, we were able to remove aliased voxels in the data almost entirely, reducing the L2-error compared to the ground truth by 50%–80%. Results indicated that the best choice of algorithm depend on the spatiotemporal resolution and noise level of the dataset. Temporal unwrapping is most successful with a high temporal and low spatial resolution ((Figure presented.) ms, (Figure presented.) mm), reducing the L2-error by 70%–85%, while Laplacian unwrapping performs better with a lower temporal or better spatial resolution ((Figure presented.) ms, (Figure presented.) mm), especially for signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) 12 as opposed to SNR 15, with an error reduction of 55%–85% compared to the 50%–75% achieved by the Temporal method. The differences in performance between the methods are statistically significant. Conclusions: The temporal method and spatiotemporal Laplacian method provide the best results, with the spatiotemporal Laplacian being more robust. However, single- (Figure presented.) methods only situationally and not generally reach the performance of dual- (Figure presented.) unwrapping methods.
KW - 4D flow MRI
KW - phase-contrast MRI
KW - unwrapping methods
KW - VENC
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85162643549&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/mrm.29767
DO - 10.1002/mrm.29767
M3 - Article
C2 - 37345719
AN - SCOPUS:85162643549
SN - 0740-3194
VL - 90
SP - 2102
EP - 2115
JO - Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
JF - Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
IS - 5
ER -