Comparison of Divergence-Free Filters for Cardiac 4D PC-MRI Data

  • Mickäel Francisco Sereno
  • Benjamin Köhler
  • Bernhard Preim
Conference paper
Part of the Informatik aktuell book series (INFORMAT)


4D PC-MRI enables the measurement of time-resolved blood flow directions within a 3D volume. These data facilitate a comprehensive qualitative and quantitative analysis. However, noise is introduced, e.g., due to inhomogeneous magnetic field gradients. Blood is commonly assumed as a non-Newtonian fluid, thus, incompressible, and divergence should be zero. Divergence-free filters enforce this model assumption and have been shown to improve data quality. In this paper, we compare binomial smoothing and three of these techniques: The finite difference method (FDM), divergence-free radial basis functions (DFRBF) and divergence-free wavelets (DFW). The results show that average and maximum velocities tend to decrease, while average line lengths tend to increase slightly. We recommend FDM or DFW divergence-free filtering as an optional pre-processing step in 4D PC-MRI processing pipelines, as they have feasible computation times of few seconds.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Dyverfeldt P, Bissell M, Barker AJ, et al. 4D flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance consensus statement. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2015;17(1):1–19.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Köhler B, Born S, Van Pelt RFP, et al. A survey of cardiac 4D PC-MRI data processing. Comput Graph Forum. 2017;36(6):5–35.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Song SM, Napel S, Glover GH, et al. Noise reduction in three-dimensional phasecontrast MR velocity measurements. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1993;3(4):587–96.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Busch J, Giese D, Wissmann L, et al. Reconstruction of divergence-free velocity fields from cine 3D phase-contrast flow measurements. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013;69(1):200–10.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Paige CC, Saunders MA. LSQR: An algorithm for sparse linear equations and sparse least squares. ACM Trans Math Softw. 1982;8(1):43–71.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ong F, Uecker M, Tariq U, et al. Robust 4D flow denoising using divergence-free wavelet transform. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015;73(2):828–42.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Loecher M, Schrauben E, Johnson KM, et al. Phase unwrapping in 4D MR flow with a 4D single-step Laplacian algorithm. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015;43(4):833–42.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Antiga L, Iordache EB, Remuzzi A. Computational geometry for patient-specific reconstruction and meshing of blood vessels from MR and CT angiography. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2003;22(5):674–84.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Donoho DL, Johnstone IM. Adapting to unknown smoothness via wavelet shrinkage. J Am Stat Assoc. 1995;90(432):1200–24.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mickäel Francisco Sereno
    • 1
  • Benjamin Köhler
    • 2
  • Bernhard Preim
    • 2
  1. 1.Paris-Sud UniversityOrsayFrankreich
  2. 2.Deptartment of Simulation and GraphicsMagdeburg UniversityMagdeburgDeutschland

Personalised recommendations