Search

Local pressure differences estimated using vector flow imaging (VFI) and direct catheterization in seven carotid bifurcation phantoms were compared with simulated pressure fields. VFI correlated strongly with simulated peak pressure differences (r = 0.99, p < 0.00001), with an average overestimation of 12.3 Pa (28.6%). The range between the lowest and highest pressure difference of VFI underestimated simulations by 4.6 Pa (8.06%; r = 0.99, p < 0.0001). The catheter method exhibited no correlation (r = -0.09, p = 0.85). Ten repeated measurements on one phantom revealed a small standard deviation (SD) for VFI (SD = 8.4%, mean estimated SD = 11.5%), but not for the catheter method (SD = 785.6%). An in vivo peak systolic pressure difference of 97.9 Pa (estimated SD = 30%) was measured using VFI in one healthy individual. This study indicates that VFI pressure difference estimation is feasible in phantoms and in vivo and realistic estimates of the SD can be attained from the data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Respiratory variability of peak velocities (RVPV) in the common femoral vein measured with ultrasound can reveal venous outflow obstruction. Pulse wave (PW) Doppler is the gold standard for venous velocity estimation of the lower extremities. PW Doppler measurements are angle dependent, whereas vector flow imaging (VFI) can yield angle-independent measures. The hypothesis of the present study was that VFI can provide RVPV estimations without the angle dependency of PW Doppler for an improved venous disease assessment. Sixty-seven patients with symptomatic chronic venous disease were included in the study. On average, VFI measured a lower RVPV than PW Doppler (VFI: 14.11 cm/s; PW: 17.32 cm/s, p = 0.002) with a non-significant improved precision compared with PW Doppler (VFI: 21.09%; PW: 26.49%, p = 0.08). In a flow phantom, VFI had improved accuracy (p < 0.01) and equal precision compared with PW Doppler. The study indicated that VFI can characterize the hemodynamic fluctuations in the common femoral vein. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study described here investigated whether angle-independent vector flow imaging (VFI) technique estimates peak velocities in the portal vein comparably to pulsed wave Doppler (PWD). Furthermore, intra- and inter-observer agreement was assessed in a substudy. VFI and PWD peak velocities were estimated with from intercostal and subcostal views for 32 healthy volunteers, and precision analyses were conducted. Blinded to estimates, three physicians rescanned 10 volunteers for intra- and inter-observer agreement analyses. The precision of VFI and PWD was 18% and 28% from an intercostal view and 23% and 77% from a subcostal view, respectively. Bias between VFI and PWD was 0.57 cm/s (p = 0.38) with an intercostal view and 9.89 cm/s (p <0.001) with a subcostal view. Intra- and inter-observer agreement was highest for VFI (inter-observer intra-class correlation coefficient: VFI 0.80, PWD 0.3; intra-observer intra-class correlation coefficient: VFI 0.90, PWD 0.69). Regardless of scan view, VFI was more precise than PWD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ultrasound is used for evaluating the veins of the lower extremities. Operator and angle dependency limit spectral Doppler ultrasound (SDUS). The aim of the study was to compare peak velocity measurements in a flow phantom and the femoropopliteal vein of 20 volunteers with the angle-independent vector velocity technique vector flow imaging (VFI) and SDUS. In the flow phantom, VFI underestimated velocity (p = 0.01), with a lower accuracy of 5.5% (p = 0.01) and with no difference in precision, that is, error factor, compared with SDUS (VFI: 1.02 vs. SDUS: 1.02, p = 0.58). In vivo, VFI estimated lower velocities (femoral: p = 0.001; popliteal: p = 0.001) with no difference in precision compared with SDUS (femoral: VFI 1.09 vs. SDUS 1.14, p = 0.37; popliteal: VFI 1.13 vs. SDUS 1.06, p = 0.09). In conclusion, the precise VFI technique can be used to characterize venous hemodynamics of the lower extremities despite its underestimation of velocities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]