Dataset Information

Validation of four-dimensional flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance for aortic stenosis assessment.

ABSTRACT: The management of patients with aortic stenosis (AS) crucially depends on accurate diagnosis. The main aim of this study were to validate the four-dimensional flow (4D flow) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) methods for AS assessment. Eighteen patients with clinically severe AS were recruited. All patients had pre-valve intervention 6MWT, echocardiography and CMR with 4D flow. Of these, ten patients had a surgical valve replacement, and eight patients had successful transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). TAVI patients had invasive pressure gradient assessments. A repeat assessment was performed at 3-4 months to assess the remodelling response. The peak pressure gradient by 4D flow was comparable to an invasive pressure gradient (54?±?26?mmHG vs 50?±?34?mmHg, P?=?0.67). However, Doppler yielded significantly higher pressure gradient compared to invasive assessment (61?±?32?mmHG vs 50?±?34?mmHg, P?=?0.0002). 6MWT was associated with 4D flow CMR derived pressure gradient (r?=?-0.45, P?=?0.01) and EOA (r?=?0.54, P?

SUBMITTER: Archer GT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7324609 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Validation of four-dimensional flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance for aortic stenosis assessment.

Archer Gareth T GT Elhawaz Alaa A Barker Natasha N Fidock Benjamin B Rothman Alexander A van der Geest R J RJ Hose Rod R Briffa Norman N Hall Ian R IR Grech Ever E Bissell Malenka M Al-Mohammad Abdallah A Treibel Thomas A TA Swift Andrew J AJ Wild James M JM Garg Pankaj P

Scientific reports 20200629 1

The management of patients with aortic stenosis (AS) crucially depends on accurate diagnosis. The main aim of this study were to validate the four-dimensional flow (4D flow) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) methods for AS assessment. Eighteen patients with clinically severe AS were recruited. All patients had pre-valve intervention 6MWT, echocardiography and CMR with 4D flow. Of these, ten patients had a surgical valve replacement, and eight patients had successful transcatheter aortic va ...[more]

PMID: 32601326

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDecisions in the management of aortic stenosis are based on the peak pressure drop, captured by Doppler echocardiography, whereas gold standard catheterization measurements assess the net pressure drop but are limited by associated risks. The relationship between these two measurements, peak and net pressure drop, is dictated by the pressure recovery along the ascending aorta which is mainly caused by turbulence energy dissipation. Currently, pressure recovery is considered to occur within the first 40-50 mm distally from the aortic valve, albeit there is inconsistency across interventionist centers on where/how to position the catheter to capture the net pressure drop.MethodsWe developed a non-invasive method to assess the pressure recovery distance based on blood flow momentum via 4D Flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). Multi-center acquisitions included physical flow phantoms with different stenotic valve configurations to validate this method, first against reference measurements and then against turbulent energy dissipation (respectively n = 8 and n = 28 acquisitions) and to investigate the relationship between peak and net pressure drops. Finally, we explored the potential errors of cardiac catheterisation pressure recordings as a result of neglecting the pressure recovery distance in a clinical bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) cohort of n = 32 patients.ResultsIn-vitro assessment of pressure recovery distance based on flow momentum achieved an average error of 1.8 ± 8.4 mm when compared to reference pressure sensors in the first phantom workbench. The momentum pressure recovery distance and the turbulent energy dissipation distance showed no statistical difference (mean difference of 2.8 ± 5.4 mm, R2 = 0.93) in the second phantom workbench. A linear correlation was observed between peak and net pressure drops, however, with strong dependences on the valvular morphology. Finally, in the BAV cohort the pressure recovery distance was 78.8 ± 34.3 mm from vena contracta, which is significantly longer than currently accepted in clinical practise (40-50 mm), and 37.5% of patients displayed a pressure recovery distance beyond the end of the ascending aorta.ConclusionThe non-invasive assessment of the distance to pressure recovery is possible by tracking momentum via 4D Flow CMR. Recovery is not always complete at the ascending aorta, and catheterised recordings will overestimate the net pressure drop in those situations. There is a need to re-evaluate the methods that characterise the haemodynamic burden caused by aortic stenosis as currently clinically accepted pressure recovery distance is an underestimation.

Project description:BackgroundFour-dimensional cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) flow assessment (4D flow) allows to derive volumetric quantitative parameters in mitral regurgitation (MR) using retrospective valve tracking. However, prior studies have been conducted in functional MR or in patients with congenital heart disease, thus, data regarding the usefulness of 4D flow CMR in case of a valve pathology like mitral valve prolapse (MVP) are scarce. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical utility of cine-guided valve segmentation of 4D flow CMR in assessment of MR in MVP when compared to standardized routine CMR and transthoracic echocardiography (TTE).MethodsSix healthy subjects and 54 patients (55 ± 16 years; 47 men) with MVP were studied. TTE severity grading used a multiparametric approach resulting in mild/mild-moderate (n = 12), moderate-severe (n = 12), and severe MR (n = 30). Regurgitant volume (RVol) and regurgitant fraction (RF) were also derived using standard volumetric CMR and 4D flow CMR datasets with direct measurement of regurgitant flow (4DFdirect) and indirect calculation using the formula: mitral valve forward flow - left ventricular outflow tract stroke volume (4DFindirect).ResultsThere was moderate to strong correlation between methods (r = 0.59-0.84, p < 0.001), but TTE proximal isovelocity surface area (PISA) method showed higher RVol as compared with CMR techniques (PISA vs. CMR, mean difference of 15.8 ml [95% CI 9.9-21.6]; PISA vs. 4DFindirect, 17.2 ml [8.4-25.9]; PISA vs. 4DFdirect, 27.9 ml [19.1-36.8]; p < 0.001). Only indirect CMR methods (CMR vs. 4DFindirect) showed moderate to substantial agreement (Lin's coefficient 0.92-0.97) without significant bias (mean bias 1.05 ± 26 ml [- 50 to 52], p = 0.757). Intra- and inter-observer reliability were good to excellent for all methods (ICC 0.87-0.99), but with numerically lower coefficient of variation for indirect CMR methods (2.5 to 12%).ConclusionsIn the assessment of patients with MR and MVP, cine-guided valve segmentation 4D flow CMR is feasible and comparable to standard CMR, but with lower RVol when TTE is used as reference. 4DFindirect quantification has higher intra- and inter-technique agreement than 4DFdirect quantification and might be used as an adjunctive technique for cross-checking MR quantification in MVP.

Dataset Information

Validation of four-dimensional flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance for aortic stenosis assessment.

Publications

Validation of four-dimensional flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance for aortic stenosis assessment.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets