Dynamic Phantom for Flow Model in Magnetic Resonance Angiography

Purpose. To develop phantom for flow modeling in magnetic resonance angiography (MRA): relative contrast assessment, accuracy of the linear velocity and volumetric flow, what improve accuracy of diagnostic in cardiac and neurosurgical clinics (quality assessment of blood and cerebrospinal fluid motion). To compare scanners of different manufactures in points of the MRA efficiency using the developed phantom.

Materials and methods. The main part of dynamic phantom consists of a disc filled with agarose gel (for linear and volumetric velocity control) and silicone tubes for fluid flow modelling. MR study was performed at MRI units of two manufactures for comparing quantitative assessments of MRA sequences: 2DTOF, 3DTOF, and at three MRI units of one firm for estimated accuracy calibration curve calculating and linear velocity and volumetric flow determination for PC MRA. Phantom study well correlate with clinical MRA results.

Results. Obtained phantom scanning results in 2DTOF, 3DTOF sequences allow for objective comparing two MRI units of different manufactures. For 2DTOF mode was showed more effective signal enhancement affected by TOF effect for scanner of manufacture 2, then manufacture 1: 8.86 ± 0.88 и 6.07 ± 0.03 corresponding. For 3DTOF was observed rather more inflow relative contrast affected by TOF effect for scanner of manufacture 1: 6.06 ± 0.47 and 3.17 ± 0.83 corresponding. However, for manufacture 1 was showed more significant signal suppression for fat tissue, which improve vasculature visualization. Accuracy linear velocity fluid flow measurement in 2DPC is equal to ±2σ = ±0,4 by five pixels for three scanners of one manufacture. Using developed phantom was modelled MRA effects in 3DPC and Time-SLIP modes.

Conclusions. The developed dynamic phantom can be used for calibration tests in MRA. The case of MRI units of two manufactures were compared quantitative assessments of MRA sequences and analyzed methods of enhancement fluid flow signal.

1. Koktzoglou I., Giri S., Piccini D., Grodzki D.M., Flanagan O., Murphy I.G, Gupta N., Collins J.D., Edelman R.R. Arterial Spin Labeled Carotid MR Angiography: A Phantom Study Examining the Impact of Technical and Hemodynamic Factors. Magn. Reson. Med. 2016; 75 (1): 295–301. DOI: 10.1002/mrm.25611.

2. Bunck A.C., Jüttner A., Kröger J.R., Burg M.C., Kugel H., Niederstadt T., Tiemann K., Schnackenburg B., Crelier G.R., Heindel W., Maintz D. 4D phase contrast flow imaging for in-stent flow visualization and assessment of stent patency in peripheral vascular stents-a phantom study. Eur. J. Radiol. 2012; 81 (9): 929–937. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2012.05.032.

3. Pauline W., Martin J.G., David J.L. Integrated physiological flow simulator and pulse sequence monitoring system for MRI. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 2008; 46 (4): 399–406. DOI: 10.1007/s11517-008-0319-x.

4. Taviani V., Patterson A.J., Worters P., Sutcliffe M.P.F., Graves M.J., Gillard J.H. Accuracy of Phase Contrast, Black-Blood, and Bright-Blood pulse sequences for measuring compliance and distensibility coefficients in a human-tissue mimicking phantom. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging. 2010; 31: 160–167. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.22005.

5. Irwan R., Rűssel I.K., Sijens P.E. Fast 3D coronary artery contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography with magnetization transfer contrast, fat suppression and parallel imaging as applied on an anthropomorphic moving heart phantom. Magn. Reson. Imaging. 2006; 24: 895–902. DOI: 10.1016/j.mri.2006.03.003.

6. Sergienko V.I., Martyinov A.K., Petryaykin A.V., Koshurnikov D.S., Fadeev A.A., Nikolaev D.A., Karmazanovskiy G.G., Osipova N.Yu., Fedorov V.D. New aspects of the vascular stents technical tests. Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine. Appendix. 2007; 2: 112–116. (In Russian)

7. Kazerou A., Patatoukas G., Argiropoulos G., Efstathopoulos E. In vitro blood flow analysis using magnetic resonance angiography. Physica Medica. 2016; 32 (3): 305. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2016.07.159.

8. Durand E.P., Jolivet O., Itti E., Tasu J.P., Bittoun J. Precision of Magnetic Resonance Velocity and Acceleration Measurements: Theoretical Issues and Phantom Experiments. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging. 2001; 13: 445–451.

9. Nilsson A., Bloch K.M., Töger J., Heiberg E., Ståhlberg F. Accuracy of four-dimensional phase-contrast velocity mapping for blood flow visualizations: a phantom study. Acta Radiol. 2013; 54: 663. DOI: 10.1177/0284185113478005.

10. Gromov A.I., Sergunova K.A., Petraikin A.V., Polenok J.A., Mikhajlenko E.A. Disc phantom for controlling speed measurement with phase-contrast magnetic resonance imaging and method of controlling measurement of linear and volumetric speed of phantom. Patent RU 2579824, published of March 11, 2016. (In Russian)

11. Nordell B., Ståhlberg F., Ericsson A., Ranta C. A rotating phantom for the study of flow effects in MR-imaging. Magn. Reson. Imaging. 1988; 6 (6): 695–705.

12. Allard L., Soulez G., Chayer B., Qin Z., Roy D., Cloutier G. A multimodality vascular imaging phantom of an abdominal aortic aneurysm with a visible thrombus. Med. Phys. 2013; 40 (6): 063701. DOI: 10.1118/1.4803497.

13. Chizhiumov S.D. Basis of hydrodynamic. Komsomolsk-naAmure, GOUVPO “KnASTU”, 2007: 15–16. (In Russian)

14. Srichai M.B., Lim R.P., Wong S., Lee V.S. Cardiovascular Applications of Phase-Contrast MRI. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2009; 192 (3): 662–675. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.07.3744.

15. Rigsby C.K., Hilpipre N., McNeal G.R., Zhang G., Boylan E.E., Popescu A.R., Choi G., Greiser A., Deng J. Analysis of an automated background correction method for cardiovascular MR phase contrast imaging in children and young adults. J. Pediatr. Radiol. 2014; 44 (3): 26515–16273. DOI: 10.1007/s00247-013-2830-y.

16. Holland B.J., Printz B.F., Lai W.W. Baseline correction ofphase-contrast images in congenital cardiovascular magnetic resonance. J. Cardiovasc. Magn. Reson. 2010; 12 (1): 11. DOI: 10.1186/1532-429X-12-11.