ISSN Print: 2381-1110  ISSN Online: 2381-1129
American Journal of Computer Science and Information Engineering  
Manuscript Information
 
 
Comparison of Ultrafast Color Doppler and High-frame-rate Vector Flow with Pulsed Wave Doppler: A Phantom Study
American Journal of Computer Science and Information Engineering
Vol.6 , No. 3, Publication Date: Nov. 12, 2019, Page: 30-42
415 Views Since November 12, 2019, 185 Downloads Since Nov. 12, 2019
 
 
Authors
 
[1]    

Alfredo Goddi, SME Medical Center - Diagnostic Imaging, Varese, Italy.

[2]    

Lisa Milan, Postgraduate School of Medical Physics, University of Milan, Milan, Italy;Medical Physics Department, ASST dei Sette Laghi, Varese, Italy.

[3]    

Paola Nocera, Postgraduate School of Medical Physics, University of Milan, Milan, Italy;Medical Physics Department, ASST dei Sette Laghi, Varese, Italy.

[4]    

Luca Aiani, SME Medical Center - Diagnostic Imaging, Varese, Italy.

[5]    

Chandra Bortolotto, Radiology Department, Fondazione Istituto Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy.

[6]    

Ilaria Fiorina, Radiology Department, Fondazione Istituto Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy.

[7]    

Michela Bozzetto, Department of Engineering and Applied Sciences, University of Bergamo, Dalmine (Bergamo), Italy.

[8]    

Raffaele Novario, Medical Physics Department, ASST dei Sette Laghi, Varese, Italy;Department of Biotechnology and Life Sciences, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy.

 
Abstract
 

The aim of this work is to compare the in vitro performance of two new Doppler techniques with pulsed wave Doppler (PW). Ultrafast color Doppler (UFCD), high-frame-rate vector flow (HiFR-VF), and PW methods were compared on a standardized phantom. The time-averaged maximum (TAmax) velocity measured by three different ultrasound systems was compared with the nominal values, namely 35, 70 and 106 cm/s, displayed by the phantom. The accuracy and precision in measuring different velocities were estimated for a continuously fully-developed flow in a 5 mm diameter straight tube. All the systems estimated TAmax with a relative bias between -10% and +20% with PW, mainly overestimating the expected velocity. The mean velocities and relative biases were significantly different in the three systems at almost all selected velocities (p<0.0001). However, the mean velocities and relative biases were not significantly different for UFCD and HiFR-VF methods at all velocities (p>0.36) and showed the same accuracy and precision (p>0.05). The HiFR-VF, UFCD and PW methods demonstrated an overall mean relative bias of -1.02%, 2.14% and -2.77%, respectively. The HiFR-VF technique resulted in more accurate and precise overall results. HiFR-VF and UFCD were more accurate and precise than PW in the TAmax assessments at various velocities. HiFR-VF showed better performance compared to PW and UFCD which are angle dependent. This may be due to HiFR-VF angle independence. The HiFR-VF findings were achieved with the plane wave multidirectional transmission and reception technique, employed to measure each velocity vector component, which may have affected the positive results.


Keywords
 

Doppler, Plane Wave Imaging, Vector Flow Imaging, Ultrafast Doppler, Pulsed Wave Doppler


Reference
 
[01]    

Evans DH, McDicken WN, Skidmore R, Woodcock JP. Doppler Ultrasound, Physics, Instrumentation, and Clinical Applications. 2 nd ed. New York, (NY): Wiley; 1989.

[02]    

Mitchell DG. Color Doppler imaging: principles, limitations, and artifacts. Radiology 1990; 177: 1-10.

[03]    

Bercoff J, Montaldo G, Loupas T, Savery D, Meziere F, Fink M. Ultrafast compound Doppler imaging: providing full blood flow characterization. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 2011; 58: 134-147.

[04]    

Bercoff J. Ultrafast Ultrasound Imaging. In: Minin O, Minin I (eds). Ultrasound Imaging - Medical Applications. InTechOpen. Shangai; 2011.

[05]    

Park MY, Jung SE, Byun JY, Kim JH, Joo GE. Effect of beam flow angle on velocity measurements in modern Doppler ultrasound systems. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012; 198: 1139-1143.

[06]    

Phillips DJ. Recent advances in carotid artery evaluation. Clin Diagn Ultrasound 1990; 26: 25-44.

[07]    

Ford MD, Xie YJ, Wasserman BA, Steinman DA. Is flow in the common carotid artery fully developed?. Physiol Meas. 2008; 29: 1335–1349

[08]    

Jensen JA, Munk P. A new method for estimation of velocity vectors. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 1998; 45: 837-851.

[09]    

Hansen PL, Cross G, Light LH. Beam-angle independent Doppler velocity measurement in superficial vessels. In: Woodcock JP (ed). Clinical Blood flow measurement. London: Sector Publishing; 1974: 28-32.

[10]    

Jensen JA, Nikolov SI, Yu ACH, Garcia D. Ultrasound Vector Flow Imaging - Part I: Sequential Systems. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 2016; 63: 1704-1721.

[11]    

Jensen JA, Nikolov SI, Yu ACH, Garcia D. Ultrasound Vector Flow Imaging—Part II: Parallel Systems. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 2016; 63: 1722-1732.

[12]    

Yiu BYS, Lai SSM, Yu ACH. Vector Projectile Imaging: Time-Resolved Dynamic Visualization of Complex Flow Patterns. Ultrasound Med Biol 2014; 40: 2295–2309.

[13]    

Yiu BYS, Yu ACH. Least-squares multi-angle Doppler estimators for plane wave vector flow imaging. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 2016; 63: 1733-1744.

[14]    

Goddi A, Fanizza M, Bortolotto C, et al. Vector Flow Imaging Techniques: An Innovative Ultrasound Technique for the Study of Blood Flow. Journal of Clinical Ultrasound 2017; 45: 582-588.

[15]    

Goddi A, Bortolotto C, Fiorina I, et al. High-frame rate vector flow imaging of the carotid bifurcation. Insights Imaging 2017; 8: 319-328.

[16]    

Fiorina I, Raciti MV, Goddi A, et al. Ultrasound Vector Flow Imaging: could be a new tool in evaluation of arteriovenous fistulas for hemodialysis? J Vasc Access 2017; 18: 284-289.

[17]    

Goddi A, Bortolotto C, Raciti MV, et al. High-Frame Rate Vector Flow Imaging of the Carotid Bifurcation in Healthy Adults: Comparison with Color Doppler Imaging. J Ultrasound Med. 2018; 37: 2263-2275.

[18]    

Ricci S, Vilkomerson D, Matera R, Tortoli P. Accurate blood peak velocity estimation using spectral models and vector Doppler. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 2016; 62: 686-696.

[19]    

Hoskins PR. Accuracy of maximum velocity estimates made using Doppler ultrasound systems. Br J Radiol 1996; 69: 172-177.

[20]    

Zhou B, Fraser KH, Poelma C et al. Ultrasound Imaging velocimetry: Effect of beam sweeping on velocity estimation. Ultrasound Med Biol 2013; 39: 1672–1681

[21]    

Trahey GE, Allison JW, von Ramm OT. Angle independent ultrasonic detection of blood flow. IEEE Transaction on Biomedical Engineering 1987; 34: 965-967.

[22]    

Fox MD. Multiple crossed-beam ultrasound Doppler velocimetry. IEEE Transactions on Sonics and Ultrasonics 1978; 25: 281–286.

[23]    

Overbeck JR, Beach KW, Strandness DEJ. Vector Doppler: Accurate measurement of blood velocity in two dimensions. Ultrasound Med Biol 1992; 18: 19–31.

[24]    

Bohs LN, Geiman BJ, Anderson ME, Gebhart SC, Trahey GE. Speckle tracking for multi-dimensional flow estimation. Ultrasonics 2000; 38: 369–375.

[25]    

Udesen J, Gran F, Hansen KL, Jensen JA, Thomsen C, Nielsen MB. High frame-rate blood vector velocity imaging using plane waves: Simulations and preliminary experiments. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 2008; 55: 1729-1743.

[26]    

Pedersen MM, Pihl MJ, Haugaard P, et al. Comparison of real-time in vivo spectral and vector velocity estimation. Ultrasound Med Biol 2012; 38: 145–151.

[27]    

Hansen PM, Olesen JB, Pihl MJ, et al. Volume flow in arteriovenous fistulas using vector velocity ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 2014; 40: 2707–2714.

[28]    

Brandt AH, Jensen J, Hansen KL, et al. Surveillance for hemodialysis access stenosis: Usefulness of ultrasound vector volume flow. J Vasc Access 2016; 17: 483–488.

[29]    

Bechsgaard T, Hansen KL, Brandt AH, et al. Respiratory variability of peak velocities in the common femoral vein estimated with vector flow imaging and Doppler ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 2018; 44: 1941-1950.

[30]    

Bechsgaard T, Hansen KL, Brandt AH, et al. Vector and Doppler Ultrasound Velocities Evaluated in a Flow Phantom and the Femoropopliteal Vein. Ultrasound Med Biol 2017; 43: 2477-2487.

[31]    

Hansen KL, Moller-Sorensen H, Kjaergaard J, et al. Vector flow imaging compared with conventional Doppler ultrasound and thermodilution for estimation of blood flow in the ascending aorta. Ultrason Imaging 2017; 39: 3–18.

[32]    

Brandt AH, Hansen KL, Ewertsen C, et al. A Comparison Study of Vector Velocity, Spectral Doppler and Magnetic Resonance of Blood Flow in the Common Carotid Artery. Ultrasound Med Biol 2018; 44: 1751-1761.

[33]    

Jensen J, Villagomez Hoyos CA, Stuart MB, Ewertsen C, Nielsen Bachamnn M, Jensen JA. Fast Plane Wave 2-D Vector Flow Imaging Using Transverse Oscillation and Directional Beamforming. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 2017; 64: 1050-1062.

[34]    

Tortoli P, Lenge M, Righi D, Ciuti G, Liebgott H, Ricci S. Comparison of carotid artery blood velocity measurements by vector and standard Doppler approaches. Ultrasound Med Biol 2015; 41: 1354-1362.

[35]    

Leow CH, Bazigou E, Eckersley RJ, Yu AC, Weinberg PD, Tang MX. Flow Velocity Mapping Using Contrast Enhanced High-Frame-Rate Plane Wave Ultrasound and Image Tracking: Methods and Initial in Vitro and in Vivo Evaluation. Ultrasound Med Biol 2015; 41: 2913-25.

[36]    

Leow CH, Tang MX. Spatio-Temporal Flow and Wall Shear Stress Mapping Based on Incoherent Ensemble-Correlation of Ultrafast Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound Images. Ultrasound Med Biol 2018; 44: 134–152.





 
  Join Us
 
  Join as Reviewer
 
  Join Editorial Board
 
share:
 
 
Submission
 
 
Membership