Background: The assessment of arterial stiffness is increasingly used for evaluating patients with different cardiovascular diseases as the mechanical properties of major arteries are often altered. Aortic stiffness can be noninvasively estimated by measuring pulse wave velocity (PWV). Several methods have been proposed for measuring PWV using velocity-encoded cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR), including transit-time (TT), flow-area (QA), and cross-correlation (XC) methods. However, assessment and comparison of these techniques at high field strength has not yet been performed. In this work, the TT, QA, and XC techniques were clinically tested at 3 Tesla and compared to each other.
Methods: Fifty cardiovascular patients and six volunteers were scanned to acquire the necessary images. The six volunteer scans were performed twice to test inter-scan reproducibility. Patient images were analyzed using the TT, XC, and QA methods to determine PWV. Two observers analyzed the images to determine inter-observer and intra-observer variabilities. The PWV measurements by the three methods were compared to each other to test inter-method variability. To illustrate the importance of PWV using CMR, the degree of aortic stiffness was assessed using PWV and related to LV dysfunction in five patients with diastolic heart failure patients and five matched volunteers.
Results: The inter-observer and intra-observer variability results showed no bias between the different techniques. The TT and XC results were more reproducible than the QA; the mean (SD) inter-observer/intra-observer PWV differences were -0.12(1.3)/-0.04(0.4) for TT, 0.2(1.3)/0.09(0.9) for XC, and 0.6(1.6)/0.2(1.4) m/s for QA methods, respectively. The correlation coefficients (r) for the inter-observer/intra-observer comparisons were 0.94/0.99, 0.88/0.94, and 0.83/0.92 for the TT, XC, and QA methods, respectively. The inter-scan reproducibility results showed low variability between the repeated scans (mean (SD) PWV difference = -0.02(0.4) m/s and r = 0.96). The inter-method variability results showed strong correlation between the TT and XC measurements, but less correlation with QA: r = 0.95, 0.87, and 0.89, and mean (SD) PWV differences = -0.12(1.0), 0.8(1.7), and 0.65(1.6) m/s for TT-XC, TT-QA, and XC-QA, respectively. Finally, in the group of diastolic heart failure patient, PWV was significantly higher (6.3 +/- 1.9 m/s) than in volunteers (3.5 +/- 1.4 m/s), and the degree of LV diastolic dysfunction showed good correlation with aortic PWV.
Conclusions: In conclusion, while each of the studied methods has its own advantages and disadvantages, at high field strength, the TT and XC methods result in closer and more reproducible aortic PWV measurements, and the associated image processing requires less user interaction, than in the QA method. The choice of the analysis technique depends on the vessel segment geometry and available image quality.