Skip to main content

4D flow MR imaging of the portal venous system: a feasibility study in children

European Radiology volume 27, pages 832–840 (2017)Cite this article

Abstract

Objectives

To determine the feasibility of 4D flow MRI for visualization and quantification of the portal venous haemodynamics in children and young adults.

Methods

4D flow was performed in 28 paediatric patients (median age, 8.5 years; interquartile range, 5.2–16.5), 15 with non-operated native portal system and 13 with surgically created portal shunt. Image quality assessment for 3D flow visualization and flow pattern analyses was performed. Regional 4D flow peak velocity and net flow were compared with 2D-cine phase contrast MRI (2D-PC MR) in the post-surgical patients.

Results

Mean 3D flow visualization quality score was excellent (mean ± SD, 4.2 ± 0.9) with good inter-rater agreement (κ,0.67). Image quality in children aged >10 years was better than children ≤10 years (p < 0.05). Flow pattern was defined for portal, superior mesenteric, splenic veins and splenic artery in all patients. 4D flow and 2D-PC MR peak velocity and net flow were similar with good correlation (peak velocity: 4D flow 22.2 ± 9.1 cm/s and 2D-PC MR 25.2 ± 11.2 cm/s, p = 0.46; r = 0.92, p < 0.0001; net flow: 4D flow 9.5 ± 7.4 ml/s and 2D-PC MR 10.1 ± 7.3 ml/s, p = 0.65; r = 0.81, p = 0.0007).

Conclusions

4D flow MRI is feasible and holds promise for the comprehensive 3D visualization and quantification of portal venous flow dynamics in children and young adults.

Key Points

• 4D flow MRI is feasible in children and young adults.

• 4D flow MRI has the ability to non-invasively characterize portal haemodynamics.

• Image quality of 4D flow MRI is better is older children.

• 4D flow MRI can accurately quantify portal flow compared to 2D-cine PC MRI.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Abbreviations

2D-PC MR:

2D-cine phase contrast MR imaging

4D flow MRI:

3D-cine phase contrast MRI with three-directional velocity encoding (flow)

GRAPPA:

Generalized autocalibrating partially parallel acquisitions

VENC:

Velocity encoding

References

  1. Markl M, Frydrychowicz A, Kozerke S, Hope M, Wieben O (2012) 4D flow MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 36:1015–1036

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Frydrychowicz A, Landgraf BR, Niespodzany E et al (2011) Four-dimensional velocity mapping of the hepatic and splanchnic vasculature with radial sampling at 3 tesla: a feasibility study in portal hypertension. J Magn Reson Imaging 34:577–584

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Stankovic Z, Frydrychowicz A, Csatari Z et al (2010) MR-based visualization and quantification of three-dimensional flow characteristics in the portal venous system. J Magn Reson Imaging 32:466–475

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Stankovic Z, Csatari Z, Deibert P et al (2012) Normal and altered three-dimensional portal venous hemodynamics in patients with liver cirrhosis. Radiology 262:862–873

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Roldan-Alzate A, Frydrychowicz A, Niespodzany E et al (2013) In vivo validation of 4D flow MRI for assessing the hemodynamics of portal hypertension. J Magn Reson Imaging 37:1100–1108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Stankovic Z, Csatari Z, Deibert P et al (2013) A feasibility study to evaluate splanchnic arterial and venous hemodynamics by flow-sensitive 4D MRI compared with Doppler ultrasound in patients with cirrhosis and controls. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 25:669–675

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Stankovic Z, Jung B, Collins J et al (2014) Reproducibility study of four-dimensional flow MRI of arterial and portal venous liver hemodynamics: influence of spatio-temporal resolution. Magn Reson Med 72:477–484

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Stankovic Z, Rossle M, Euringer W et al (2015) Effect of TIPS placement on portal and splanchnic arterial blood flow in 4-dimensional flow MRI. Eur Radiol 25:2634–2640

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ling SC (2012) Advances in the evaluation and management of children with portal hypertension. Semin Liver Dis 32:288–297

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Shneider BL, Bosch J, de Franchis R et al (2012) Portal hypertension in children: expert pediatric opinion on the report of the Baveno v Consensus Workshop on Methodology of Diagnosis and Therapy in Portal Hypertension. Pediatr Transplant 16:426–437

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. La Mura V, Nicolini A, Tosetti G, Primignani M (2015) Cirrhosis and portal hypertension: the importance of risk stratification, the role of hepatic venous pressure gradient measurement. World J Hepatol 7:688–695

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Suk KT (2014) Hepatic venous pressure gradient: clinical use in chronic liver disease. Clin Mol Hepatol 20:6–14

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Lin LW, Duan XJ, Wang XY et al (2008) Color Doppler velocity profile and contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in assessment of liver cirrhosis. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 7:34–39

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Robinson KA, Middleton WD, Al-Sukaiti R, Teefey SA, Dahiya N (2009) Doppler sonography of portal hypertension. Ultrasound Q 25:3–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dyvorne HA, Knight-Greenfield A, Besa C et al (2015) Quantification of hepatic blood flow using a high-resolution phase-contrast MRI sequence with compressed sensing acceleration. AJR Am J Roentgenol 204:510–518

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Gabbour M, Schnell S, Jarvis K, Robinson JD, Markl M, Rigsby CK (2015) 4-D flow magnetic resonance imaging: blood flow quantification compared to 2-D phase-contrast magnetic resonance imaging and Doppler echocardiography. Pediatr Radiol 45:804–813

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Krishnamurthy R, Cheong B, Muthupillai R (2014) Tools for cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging. Cardiovasc Diagn Ther 4:104–125

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Roldan-Alzate A, Frydrychowicz A, Said A et al (2015) Impaired regulation of portal venous flow in response to a meal challenge as quantified by 4D flow MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 42:1009–1017

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Bernstein MA, Zhou XJ, Polzin JA et al (1998) Concomitant gradient terms in phase contrast MR: analysis and correction. Magn Reson Med 39:300–308

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Walker PG, Cranney GB, Scheidegger MB, Waseleski G, Pohost GM, Yoganathan AP (1993) Semiautomated method for noise reduction and background phase error correction in MR phase velocity data. J Magn Reson Imaging 3:521–530

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bock J, Frydrychowicz A, Stalder AF et al (2010) 4D phase contrast MRI at 3 T: effect of standard and blood-pool contrast agents on SNR, PC-MRA, and blood flow visualization. Magn Reson Med 63:330–338

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Schnell S, Entezari P, Mahadewia RJ et al (2015) Improved semiautomated 4D flow MRI analysis in the aorta in patients with congenital aortic valve anomalies versus tricuspid aortic valves. J Comput Assist Tomogr. doi:10.1097/RCT.0000000000000312

    Google Scholar 

  23. Buonocore MH (1998) Visualizing blood flow patterns using streamlines, arrows, and particle paths. Magn Reson Med 40:210–226

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Geiger J, Hirtler D, Burk J et al (2014) Postoperative pulmonary and aortic 3D haemodynamics in patients after repair of transposition of the great arteries. Eur Radiol 24:200–208

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Schnell S, Markl M, Entezari P et al (2014) k-t GRAPPA accelerated four-dimensional flow MRI in the aorta: effect on scan time, image quality, and quantification of flow and wall shear stress. Magn Reson Med 72:522–533

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Jung B, Honal M, Ullmann P, Hennig J, Markl M (2008) Highly k-t-space-accelerated phase-contrast MRI. Magn Reson Med 60:1169–1177

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Frydrychowicz A, Wieben O, Niespodzany E, Reeder SB, Johnson KM, Francois CJ (2013) Quantification of thoracic blood flow using volumetric magnetic resonance imaging with radial velocity encoding: in vivo validation. Investig Radiol 48:819–825

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Gu T, Korosec FR, Block WF et al (2005) PC VIPR: a high-speed 3D phase-contrast method for flow quantification and high-resolution angiography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 26:743–749

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Cheng JY, Hanneman K, Zhang T et al (2015) Comprehensive motion-compensated highly accelerated 4D flow MRI with ferumoxytol enhancement for pediatric congenital heart disease. J Magn Reson Imaging. doi:10.1002/jmri.25106

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Hsiao A, Lustig M, Alley MT et al (2012) Rapid pediatric cardiac assessment of flow and ventricular volume with compressed sensing parallel imaging volumetric cine phase-contrast MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 198:W250–W259

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Petersson S, Dyverfeldt P, Sigfridsson A, Lantz J, Carlhall CJ, Ebbers T (2016) Quantification of turbulence and velocity in stenotic flow using spiral three-dimensional phase-contrast MRI. Magn Reson Med 75:1249–1255

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Dyvorne H, Knight-Greenfield A, Jajamovich G et al (2015) Abdominal 4D flow MR imaging in a breath hold: combination of spiral sampling and dynamic compressed sensing for highly accelerated acquisition. Radiology 275:245–254

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Singh AK, Nachiappan AC, Verma HA et al (2010) Postoperative imaging in liver transplantation: what radiologists should know. Radiographics 30:339–351

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

A scientific paper with partial material was presented at the annual meeting of The Society for Pediatric Radiology (SPR) in April 2014.

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Keyur Parekh. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study. No study subjects or cohorts have been previously reported. Methodology: prospective, diagnostic or prognostic study, performed at one institution.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Imaging, Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, 225 E. Chicago Ave., Chicago, IL, 60611, USA

    Keyur Parekh, Michael Rose, Andrada Popescu & Cynthia K. Rigsby

  2. Department of Radiology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA

    Keyur Parekh, Michael Markl, Michael Rose, Susanne Schnell, Andrada Popescu & Cynthia K. Rigsby

  3. Department of Biomedical Engineering, McCormick School of Engineering, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA

    Michael Markl

Authors
  1. Keyur Parekh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Markl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael Rose
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Susanne Schnell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andrada Popescu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Cynthia K. Rigsby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Keyur Parekh.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

File format -.mov. Twelve-year-old male patient with history of extrahepatic portal vein thrombosis treated with meso-Rex bypass surgery. Movie 1 shows mild flow acceleration proximal to the narrowing at meso-Rex/left portal vein anastomosis and reduced flow at the site of narrowing on 4D flow MRI. Turbulent flow in the dilated left portal vein can be seen (MPG 1738 kb)

File format -.mov. Eight-year-old female patient with surgically corrected extrahepatic portal vein thrombosis with a meso-Rex bypass. Patient was treated with balloon dilation for severe narrowing of meso-Rex bypass at left portal vein anastomosis. On follow-up imaging, transient flow acceleration (red coloured pathlines at 358 ms, heart rate 90 bpm) was seen at the left portal vein anastomosis on 4D flow MRI images. (MPG 1734 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Parekh, K., Markl, M., Rose, M. et al. 4D flow MR imaging of the portal venous system: a feasibility study in children. Eur Radiol 27, 832–840 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4396-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4396-1

Keywords

  • Children
  • Portal vein
  • Magnetic resonance imaging
  • 4D flow MRI
  • Phase contrast MRI