Back

CTA versus TOF-MRA for circle of Willis segmentation: Implications for hemodynamic modelling

Vikström, A.; Zarrinkoob, L.; Johannesdottir, M.; Wahlin, A.; Hellström, J.; Appelblad, M.; Holmlund, P.

2026-04-11 cardiovascular medicine
10.64898/2026.04.10.26350583 medRxiv
Show abstract

Modelling of hemodynamics in the circle of Willis (CoW) depends on vascular segmentation, which may vary based on imaging modality. Computed tomography angiography (CTA) is commonly used in clinic but involves radiation and injection of contrast agents, whereas magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) offers a non-invasive alternative. This study aims to compare CoW morphology and modelled cerebral perfusion pressure of CTA and MRA segmentations, validating if MRA can replace CTA in modelling workflows. CTA and time-of-flight MRA (TOF-MRA) of the CoW was performed in 19 patients undergoing elective aortic arch surgery (67{+/-}7 years, 8 women). The CoW was semi-automatically segmented based on signal intensity thresholding. A TOF-MRA threshold was optimized against the CTA segmentation, using the CTA as reference standard. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modelling with boundary conditions based on subject-specific flow rates from 4D flow MRI simulated cerebral perfusion pressure in the segmented geometries. A baseline simulation and a unilateral brain inflow simulation, i.e., occlusion of a carotid, were carried out. Linear mixed models indicated there was no effect of choice of modality on either average arterial lumen area (CTA - TOF-MRA: -0.2{+/-}1.3 mm2; p=0.762) or baseline pressure drops (0.2{+/-}1.9 mmHg; p=0.257). In the unilateral inflow simulation, we found no difference in pressure laterality (-6.6{+/-}18.4 mmHg; p=0.185) or collateral flow rate (10{+/-}46 ml/min; p=0.421). TOF-MRA geometries can with signal intensity thresholding be matched to produce similar morphology and modelled cerebral perfusion pressure to CTA geometries. The modelled pressure drops over the collateral arteries were sensitive to the segmentation regardless of modality.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.8%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 18%
10.3%
3
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 9%
8.6%
4
Journal of Biomechanics
57 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.0%
5
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
5.0%
6
Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.4%
7
Journal of the American Heart Association
119 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.4%
50% of probability mass above
8
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.3%
9
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.4%
10
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 35%
2.1%
11
NeuroImage: Clinical
132 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
12
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
49 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
13
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
88 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.8%
14
Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
15
Open Heart
19 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
16
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
34 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
17
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
18
Journal of Biomechanical Engineering
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.4%
19
Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis
28 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.4%
20
Angiogenesis
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.3%
21
Stroke: Vascular and Interventional Neurology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.3%
22
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.3%
23
Medical Image Analysis
33 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.0%
24
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 22%
0.9%
25
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
28 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
26
Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases
12 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
27
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.8%
28
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
29
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.8%
30
The American Journal of Cardiology
15 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%