An Angle-Independent Cross-Sectional Doppler Method for Flow Estimation in the Common Carotid Artery
Abstract
The Doppler ultrasound is the most common technique for noninvasive quantification of blood flow, which, in turn, is of major clinical importance for the assessment of the cardiovascular condition. In this article, a method is proposed in which the vessel is imaged in the short axis, which has the advantage of capturing the whole flow profile while measuring the vessel area simultaneously. This view is easier to obtain than the longitudinal image that is currently used in flow velocity estimation, reducing operator dependence. However, the Doppler angle in cross-sectional images is unknown since the vessel wall can no longer be used to estimate the flow direction. The proposed method to estimate the Doppler angle in these images is based on the elliptical intersection between a cylindrical vessel and the ultrasound plane. The parameters of this ellipse (major axis, minor axis, and rotation) are used to estimate the Doppler angle by solving a least-squares problem. Theoretical feasibility was shown in a geometrical model, after which the Doppler angle was estimated in simulated ultrasound images generated in Field II, yielding a mean error within 4°. In vitro, across 15 short-axis measurements with a wide variety of Doppler angles, errors in the flow estimates were below 10%, and in vivo, the average velocities in systole obtained from longitudinal ( v=69.1 cm/s) and cross-sectional ( v=66.5 cm/s) acquisitions were in agreement. Further research is required to validate these r…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Preliminary research showed that the RT view was more robust to motion and less operator-dependent than the LA view.
“Regarding velocity measurements, preliminary research showed that the RT view was more robust to motion and less operator-dependent than the LA view [3].”
From ESICM LIVES 2023 (2023) · cites this paper as [3]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
(2023) · Intensive Care Medicine Experimental · doi:10.1186/s40635-023-00546-y · Cited by 14 · see citing works
- Authors
- van Knippenberg, L., van Sloun, R. J. G., Shulepov, S., Bouwman, R. A., & Mischi, M.
- Affiliations
- Philips (Netherlands) (NL)
- Catharina Ziekenhuis (NL)
- Eindhoven University of Technology (NL)
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control
- Published
- 2020-08
- Volume
- 67
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1513-1524
- ISSN
- 0885-3010 (ISSN-L)
- 1525-8955
- OpenAlex
- W3008815873
- Cited by
- 11
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 0.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- TU/e Research Portal (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Philips Research, Eindhoven University of Technology, and the Catharina Hospital Eindhoven
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Ultrasound Imaging and Elastography
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Ultrasound in Clinical Applications
- Keywords
- common carotid artery, blood flow velocity, short-axis imaging, least squares estimation, operator dependence, systolic flow
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, Blood Flow Velocity, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Carotid Artery, Common, Ultrasonography, Doppler, Phantoms, Imaging
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review