Comprehensive Neonatal Cardiac, Feed and Wrap, Non‐contrast, Non‐sedated, Free‐breathing Compressed Sensing 4D Flow MRI Assessment
Authors: Panayiotou Hannah R. , Mills Lily K. , Broadbent David A. , Shelley David , Scheffczik Jutta , Olaru Alexandra M. , Jin Ning , Greenwood John P. , Michael Helen , Plein Sven , Bissell Malenka M. 
Published: July 2022

BackgroundCardiac MRI is an important imaging tool in congenital cardiac disease, but its use has been limited in the neonatal population as general anesthesia has been needed for breath‐holding. Technological advances in four‐dimensional (4D) flow MRI have now made nonsedated free‐breathing acquisition protocols a viable clinical option, but the method requires prospective validation in neonates.PurposeTo test the feasibility of compressed sensing (CS) 4D flow MRI in the neonatal population and to compare with standard previously validated two‐dimensional (2D) phase‐contrast (PC) flow MRI.Study typeProspective, cohort, image quality.PopulationA total of 14 healthy neonates (median [range] age: 2.5 [0–80] days; 8 male).Field Strength and SequenceNoncontrast 2D cine gradient echo sequence with through‐plane velocity encoding (PC) sequence and compressed sensing (CS) three‐dimensional (3D), time‐resolved, cine phase‐contrast MRI with 3D velocity‐encoding (4D flow MRI) at 3 T.AssessmentAortic 2D PC, and aortic, pulmonary trunk and superior vena cava CS 4D flow MRI were acquired using the feed and wrap technique (nonsedated) and quantified using commercially available software. Aortic flow and peak velocity were compared between methods. Internal consistency of 4D flow MRI was determined by comparing mean forward flow of the main pulmonary artery (MPA) vs. the sum of left and right pulmonary artery flows (LPA and RPA) and by comparing mean ascending aorta forward flow (AAo) vs. the sum of superior vena cava (SVC) and descending aorta flows (DAo).Statistical TestsFlow and peak‐velocity comparisons were assessed using paired t‐tests, with P < 0.05 considered significant, and Bland–Altman analysis. Interobserver and intraobserver agreement and internal consistency were analyzed by intraclass correlation co‐efficient (ICC).ResultsThere was no statistically significant difference between ascending aortic forward flow between 2D PC and CS 4D Flow MRI (P = 0.26) with a bias of 0.11 mL (−0.59 to 0.82 mL) nor peak velocity (P = 0.11), with a bias of −5 cm/sec and (−26 to 16 cm/sec). There was excellent interobserver and intraobserver agreement for each vessel (interobserver ICC: AAo 1.00; DAo 0.94, SVC 0.90, MPA 0.99, RPA 0.98, LPA 0.96; intraobserver ICC: AAo 1.00; DAo 0.99, SVC 0.98, MPA 1.00, RPA 1.00, LPA 0.99). Internal consistency measures showed excellent agreement for both mean forward flow of main pulmonary artery vs. the sum of left and right pulmonary arteries (ICC: 0.95) and mean ascending aorta forward flow vs. the sum of superior vena cava and descending aorta flows (ICC: 1.00).ConclusionSedation‐free neonatal feed and wrap MRI is well tolerated and feasible. CS 4D flow MRI quantification is similar to validated 2D PC free‐breathing imaging with excellent interobserver and intraobserver agreement.Evidence Level1Technical EfficacyStage 2