Show simple item record

Authordc.contributor.authorNolte, David Julian
Authordc.contributor.authorUrbina, Jesus
Authordc.contributor.authorSotelo, Julio
Authordc.contributor.authorSok, Leo
Authordc.contributor.authorMontalba, Cristian
Authordc.contributor.authorValverde, Israel
Authordc.contributor.authorOsses, Axel
Authordc.contributor.authorUribe, Sergio
Authordc.contributor.authorBertoglio Beltrán, Cristóbal Andrés
Admission datedc.date.accessioned2022-01-10T14:06:20Z
Available datedc.date.available2022-01-10T14:06:20Z
Publication datedc.date.issued2021
Cita de ítemdc.identifier.citationMedical Image Analysis 74 (2021) 102195es_ES
Identifierdc.identifier.other10.1016/j.media.2021.102195
Identifierdc.identifier.urihttps://repositorio.uchile.cl/handle/2250/183582
Abstractdc.description.abstractWhile the clinical gold standard for pressure difference measurements is invasive catheterization, 4D Flow MRI is a promising tool for enabling a non-invasive quantification, by linking highly spatially resolved ve- locity measurements with pressure differences via the incompressible Navier–Stokes equations. In this work we provide a validation and comparison with phantom and clinical patient data of pressure differ- ence maps estimators. We compare the classical Pressure Poisson Estimator (PPE) and the new Stokes Estimator (STE) against catheter pressure measurements under a variety of stenosis severities and flow intensities. Specifically, we use several 4D Flow data sets of realistic aortic phantoms with different anatomic and hemodynamic severities and two patients with aortic coarctation. The phantom data sets are enriched by subsampling to lower resolutions, modification of the segmentation and addition of synthetic noise, in order to study the sensitivity of the pressure difference estimators to these factors. Overall, the STE method yields more accurate results than the PPE method compared to catheterization data. The superiority of the STE becomes more evident at increasing Reynolds numbers with a better capacity of capturing pressure gradients in strongly convective flow regimes. The results indicate an im- proved robustness of the STE method with respect to variation in lumen segmentation. However, with heuristic removal of the wall-voxels, the PPE can reach a comparable accuracy for lower Reynolds’ num- bers.es_ES
Lenguagedc.language.isoenes_ES
Publisherdc.publisherElsevieres_ES
Type of licensedc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 United States*
Link to Licensedc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/*
Sourcedc.sourceMedical Image Analysises_ES
Keywordsdc.subject4D flowes_ES
Keywordsdc.subjectPressure differencees_ES
Keywordsdc.subjectCatheteres_ES
Keywordsdc.subjectClinical and experimental validationes_ES
Títulodc.titleValidation of 4D flow based relative pressure maps in aortic flowses_ES
Document typedc.typeArtículo de revistaes_ES
dc.description.versiondc.description.versionVersión publicada - versión final del editores_ES
dcterms.accessRightsdcterms.accessRightsAcceso abiertoes_ES
Catalogueruchile.catalogadorcrbes_ES
Indexationuchile.indexArtículo de publícación WoSes_ES


Files in this item

Icon

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 United States
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 United States