Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 19, 2025

Ultrasound Imaging of the Thoracic and Abdominal Aorta in Mice to Determine Aneurysm Dimensions
Published on: March 8, 2019
Multimodality comparison of aorta morphology in patients with aortopathy: 4D flow CMR, CTA, mDIXON
Bastiaan J C Te Kiefte1,2, Faeze Gholamiankhah3,4, Joe F Juffermans3,4
1Cardio Vascular Imaging Group (CVIG), Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Leiden, The Netherlands. b.j.c.te_kiefte@lumc.nl.
Insights
Four-dimensional cardiovascular magnetic resonance flow imaging (4D flow CMR) can accurately assess thoracic aorta morphology. This technique shows high agreement with Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA) and mDIXON CMR, potentially enabling single-acquisition analysis of aortic blood flow and structure.
Area of Science:
- Cardiovascular Imaging
- Medical Physics
- Radiology
Background:
- Four-dimensional cardiovascular magnetic resonance flow imaging (4D flow CMR) analyzes aortic blood flow dynamics.
- Assessing aortic morphology alongside hemodynamics typically requires additional anatomical imaging.
- This study investigates the utility of 4D flow CMR for morphological parameter determination.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare morphological parameters derived from 4D flow CMR segmentations with those from Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA) and mDIXON CMR.
- To evaluate the agreement between different imaging modalities in assessing aortic morphology.
- To determine if 4D flow CMR can serve as a standalone tool for evaluating both aortic morphology and hemodynamics.
Main Methods:
- 18 patients with diverse aortic pathologies underwent CTA and CMR (including mDIXON and 4D flow CMR).
- Thoracic aorta lumen was segmented from the aortic valve to the descending aorta into four segments: aortic root, ascending aorta, aortic arch, and descending aorta.
- Morphological parameters (maximum diameter, volume, centerline length) were compared across modalities, with segmentations performed at peak systole (CTA, 4D flow CMR) and end-diastole (mDIXON).
Main Results:
- High agreement (Intraclass Correlation Coefficients [ICCs] 0.68-0.97) was observed between 4D flow CMR and CTA/mDIXON for maximum diameter, volume, and centerline length.
- Agreement between 4D flow CMR and CTA was good to excellent (ICCs 0.70-0.97).
- Agreement between mDIXON and CTA was very good to excellent (ICCs 0.87-0.96).
- Statistically significant differences were minimal, noted only for maximum diameter in the ascending aorta (CTA vs. mDIXON) and volume in the aortic arch (CTA vs. 4D flow CMR).
Conclusions:
- Morphological parameters derived from 4D flow CMR segmentations show high agreement with CTA and mDIXON in patients with various aortic pathologies.
- 4D flow CMR holds promise for evaluating both aortic morphology and hemodynamics in a single imaging session.
- Further validation in larger cohorts is recommended to establish 4D flow CMR as a single-modality imaging technique.
Background:
Four-dimensional cardiovascular magnetic resonance flow imaging (4D flow CMR) enables analysing of aortic blood flow dynamics. In order to examine the relationship between morphology and hemodynamics, additional anatomical imaging is required. This study aims to assess if 4D flow CMR segmentations can be used to determine morphological parameters by comparing with segmentations from Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA) and mDIXON CMR.
Methods:
This study included 18 patients with various aortic pathologies who underwent CTA and CMR (including mDIXON and 4D flow CMR sequences) of the thoracic aorta. The aortic lumen was segmented from aortic valve to the descending aorta and divided into four anatomical segments: aortic root [AoR], ascending aorta [AAo], aortic arch [AA], and descending aorta [DA]. We compared morphological parameters (maximum diameter, volume, and centreline length) using these different scanning techniques. Segmentations were performed at different cardiac phases: peak systole for CTA and 4D flow CMR, and end-diastole for mDIXON.
Results:
Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman plots were determined for all modalities and all segments. Agreement between 4D flow CMR and CTA was good to very good for maximum diameter (ICC 0.70-0.85) and centreline length (ICC 0.74-0.90), and very good to excellent for volume (ICC 0.89-0.97). Between mDIXON and CTA very good for maximum diameter (0.89-0.94), good to very good for centreline length (0.78-0.88), and very good to excellent for volume (0.87-0.96). Similar results were found when comparing 4D flow CMR with mDIXON with ICCs for maximum diameter (0.68-0.84), volume (0.91-0.97), and centreline length (0.78-0.90). Statistically significant differences were observed only for maximum diameter in AAo between CTA and mDIXON (p < 0.001), and for volume in AA between CTA and 4D flow CMR (p < 0.001). No significant differences were observed for other segments and parameters.
Conclusions:
Morphologic parameters derived from 4D flow CMR segmentations of the thoracic aorta demonstrate high levels of agreement when compared to segmentations based on CTA and mDIXON, in this relatively small cohort of patients with diverse aortic pathologies. This finding could be of interest for future 4D flow CMR research, as it possibly allows for the evaluation of both morphology and hemodynamics in a single imaging acquisition. Further research in larger cohorts is needed to robustly validate 4D flow CMR as a single-modality imaging technique.
More Related Videos
11:16In vitro Assessment of Aortic Regurgitation Using Four-Dimensional Flow Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Published on: February 25, 2022
09:36A Magnetic Resonance Imaging-based Computational Protocol for Analysis of Plaque Morphology and Hemodynamics in Patients with Carotid Artery Stenosis
Published on: August 12, 2025
Related Concept Videos
Aortic Regurgitation II: Clinical Features and Diagnostic Tests
Imaging Studies for Cardiovascular System IV: CMRI
Imaging Studies for Cardiovascular System V: CT
Magnetic Resonance Imaging