RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Dual-venc 4D flow MRI, recently introduced for the assessment of intracranial hemodynamics, may provide a promising complementary approach to well-established tools such as transcranial Doppler ultrasound (TCD) and overcome some of their disadvantages. However, data comparing intracranial flow measures from dual-venc 4D flow MRI and TCD are lacking. PURPOSE: To compare cerebral blood flow velocity measures derived from dual-venc 4D flow MRI and TCD. STUDY TYPE: Prospective cohort. SUBJECTS: A total of 25 healthy participants (56 ± 4 years old, 44% female). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: A 3 T/dual-venc 4D flow MRI using a time-resolved three-dimensional phase-contrast sequence with three-dimensional velocity encoding. ASSESSMENT: Peak velocity measurements in bilateral middle cerebral arteries (MCA) were quantified from dual-venc 4D flow MRI and TCD. The MRI data were quantified by two independent observers (S.M and Y.M.) and TCD was performed by a trained technician (A.L.M.). We assessed the agreement between 4D flow MRI and TCD measures, and the interobserver agreement of 4D flow MRI measurements. STATISTICAL TESTS: Peak velocity from MRI and TCD was compared using Bland-Altman analysis and coefficient of variance. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to assess MRI interobserver agreement. A P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: There was excellent interobserver agreement in dual-venc 4D flow MRI-based measurements of peak velocity in bilateral MCA (ICC = 0.97 and 0.96 for the left and right MCA, respectively). Dual-venc 4D flow MRI significantly underestimated peak velocity in the left and right MCA compared to TCD (bias = 0.13 [0.59, -0.33] m/sec and 0.15 [0.47, -0.17] m/sec, respectively). The coefficient of variance between dual-venc 4D flow MRI and TCD measurements was 26% for the left MCA and 22% for the right MCA. DATA CONCLUSION: There was excellent interobserver agreement for the assessment of MCA peak velocity using dual-venc 4D flow MRI, and ≤20% under-estimation compared with TCD. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.