Limits...
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance compatible physical model of the left ventricle for multi-modality characterization of wall motion and hemodynamics.

Okafor IU, Santhanakrishnan A, Chaffins BD, Mirabella L, Oshinski JN, Yoganathan AP - J Cardiovasc Magn Reson (2015)

Bottom Line: DPIV and PC-CMR results of the center plane flow within the ventricle matched, both qualitatively and quantitatively, with flow from the atrium into the LV having a velocity of about 1.15 m/s for both modalities.The mean difference between CMR and SP was 5.5 ± 3.7%.The model presented here can thus be used for the purposes of: (a) acquiring CMR data for validation of FSI simulations, (b) determining accuracy of cine-CMR reconstruction methods, and

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA. iokafor3@gatech.edu.

No MeSH data available.


Comparison of the normalized volume  through the LV, as a function of the cardiac cycle time, between (a) cardiac magnetic resonance  and phase contrast cardiac magnetic resonance  and (b) stereo-photogrammetry  and inline flow probes . The absolute values of the difference between the modalities compared in (a) and (b) are also shown as a function of the cardiac cycle.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4482204&req=5

Fig9: Comparison of the normalized volume through the LV, as a function of the cardiac cycle time, between (a) cardiac magnetic resonance and phase contrast cardiac magnetic resonance and (b) stereo-photogrammetry and inline flow probes . The absolute values of the difference between the modalities compared in (a) and (b) are also shown as a function of the cardiac cycle.

Mentions: Flow probes and PC-CMR were used to acquire flow measurements into and out of the LV. The volume of the ventricle as a function of time was calculated from each of these modalities and was compared to the values obtained from SP and CMR respectively (Fig. 9). It was found that the average discrepancy (across the cardiac cycle) between SP and the flow probes was 5.9 ± 4.1 % while that between CMR and PC-CMR was found to be 8 ± 6 %. Figure 10 compares the normalized volume of the LV calculated from CMR and SP. The qualitative trends through the cardiac cycle were similar. The mean discrepancy between CMR and SP was 5.5 ± 3.7 % while the largest discrepancy throughout the entire cardiac cycle was approximately 14 %, occurring during peak diastole and peak systole.Fig. 9


Cardiovascular magnetic resonance compatible physical model of the left ventricle for multi-modality characterization of wall motion and hemodynamics.

Okafor IU, Santhanakrishnan A, Chaffins BD, Mirabella L, Oshinski JN, Yoganathan AP - J Cardiovasc Magn Reson (2015)

Comparison of the normalized volume  through the LV, as a function of the cardiac cycle time, between (a) cardiac magnetic resonance  and phase contrast cardiac magnetic resonance  and (b) stereo-photogrammetry  and inline flow probes . The absolute values of the difference between the modalities compared in (a) and (b) are also shown as a function of the cardiac cycle.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4482204&req=5

Fig9: Comparison of the normalized volume through the LV, as a function of the cardiac cycle time, between (a) cardiac magnetic resonance and phase contrast cardiac magnetic resonance and (b) stereo-photogrammetry and inline flow probes . The absolute values of the difference between the modalities compared in (a) and (b) are also shown as a function of the cardiac cycle.
Mentions: Flow probes and PC-CMR were used to acquire flow measurements into and out of the LV. The volume of the ventricle as a function of time was calculated from each of these modalities and was compared to the values obtained from SP and CMR respectively (Fig. 9). It was found that the average discrepancy (across the cardiac cycle) between SP and the flow probes was 5.9 ± 4.1 % while that between CMR and PC-CMR was found to be 8 ± 6 %. Figure 10 compares the normalized volume of the LV calculated from CMR and SP. The qualitative trends through the cardiac cycle were similar. The mean discrepancy between CMR and SP was 5.5 ± 3.7 % while the largest discrepancy throughout the entire cardiac cycle was approximately 14 %, occurring during peak diastole and peak systole.Fig. 9

Bottom Line: DPIV and PC-CMR results of the center plane flow within the ventricle matched, both qualitatively and quantitatively, with flow from the atrium into the LV having a velocity of about 1.15 m/s for both modalities.The mean difference between CMR and SP was 5.5 ± 3.7%.The model presented here can thus be used for the purposes of: (a) acquiring CMR data for validation of FSI simulations, (b) determining accuracy of cine-CMR reconstruction methods, and

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA. iokafor3@gatech.edu.

No MeSH data available.