Dataset Information

Accuracy of stroke volume measurement with phase-contrast cardiovascular magnetic resonance in patients with aortic stenosis

ABSTRACT:

Background

Phase contrast (PC) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) in the ascending aorta (AAo) is widely used to calculate left ventricular (LV) stroke volume (SV). The accuracy of PC CMR may be altered by turbulent flow. Measurement of SV at another site is suggested in the presence of aortic stenosis, but very few data validates the accuracy or inaccuracy of PC in that setting. Our objective is to compare flow measurements obtained in the AAo and LV outflow tract (LVOT) in patients with aortic stenosis.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of patients with aortic stenosis who had CMR and echocardiography. Patients with mitral regurgitation were excluded. PC in the AAo and LVOT were acquired to derive SV. LV SV from end-systolic and end-diastolic tracings was used as the reference measure. A difference ≥ 10% between the volumetric method and PC derived SVs was considered discordant. Metrics of turbulence and jet eccentricity were assessed to explore the predictors of discordant measurements.

Results

We included 88 patients, 41% with bicuspid aortic valve. LVOT SV was concordant with the volumetric method in 79 (90%) patients vs 52 (59%) patients for AAo SV (p = 0.015). In multivariate analysis, aortic stenosis flow jet angle was a strong predictor of discordant measurement in the AAo (p = 0.003). Mathematical correction for the jet angle improved the concordance from 59 to 91%. Concordance was comparable in patients with bicuspid and trileaflet valves (57% and 62% concordance respectively; p = 0.11). Accuracy of SV measured in the LVOT was not influenced by jet eccentricity. For aortic regurgitation quantification, PC in the AAo had better correlation to volumetric assessments than LVOT PC.

Conclusion

LVOT PC SV in patients with aortic stenosis and eccentric jet might be more accurate compared to the AAo SV. Mathematical correction for the jet angle in the AAo might be another alternative to improve accuracy.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12968-021-00814-4.

SUBMITTER: Guzzetti E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8567621 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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:BackgroundSeverity of thoracic aortic disease in Turner syndrome (TS) patients is currently described through measures of aorta size and geometry at discrete locations. The objective of this study is to develop an improved measurement tool that quantifies changes in size and geometry over time, continuously along the length of the thoracic aorta.MethodsCardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) scans for 15 TS patients [41 ± 9 years (mean age ± standard deviation (SD))] were acquired over a 10-year period and compared with ten healthy gender and age-matched controls. Three-dimensional aortic geometries were reconstructed, smoothed and clipped, which was followed by identification of centerlines and planes normal to the centerlines. Geometric variables, including maximum diameter and cross-sectional area, were evaluated continuously along the thoracic aorta. Distance maps were computed for TS and compared to the corresponding maps for controls, to highlight any asymmetry and dimensional differences between diseased and normal aortae. Furthermore, a registration scheme was proposed to estimate localized changes in aorta geometry between visits. The estimated maximum diameter from the continuous method was then compared with corresponding manual measurements at 7 discrete locations for each visit and for changes between visits.ResultsManual measures at the seven positions and the corresponding continuous measurements of maximum diameter for all visits considered, correlated highly (R-value = 0.77, P < 0.01). There was good agreement between manual and continuous measurement methods for visit-to-visit changes in maximum diameter. The continuous method was less sensitive to inter-user variability [0.2 ± 2.3 mm (mean difference in diameters ± SD)] and choice of smoothing software [0.3 ± 1.3 mm]. Aortic diameters were larger in TS than controls in the ascending [TS: 13.4 ± 2.1 mm (mean distance ± SD), Controls: 12.6 ± 1 mm] and descending [TS: 10.2 ± 1.3 mm (mean distance ± SD), Controls: 9.5 ± 0.9 mm] thoracic aorta as observed from the distance maps.ConclusionsAn automated methodology is presented that enables rapid and precise three-dimensional measurement of thoracic aortic geometry, which can serve as an improved tool to define disease severity and monitor disease progression.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier - NCT01678274 . Registered - 08.30.2012.

Project description:BackgroundTransthoracic echocardiography (TTE) is the diagnostic routine standard for assessing aortic stenosis (AS). However, its inaccuracies in determining stroke volume (SV) and aortic valve area (AVA) call for a more precise and dependable method. Phase-contrast cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (PC-CMR) is a promising tool to push these boundaries. Thus, the aim of this study was to validate a novel approach based on PC-CMR against the gold-standard of invasive determination of AVA in AS compared to TTE.MethodsA total of 50 patients with moderate or severe AS underwent TTE, cardiac catheterization and CMR. AVA via PC-CMR was determined by plotting momentary flow across the valve against flow-velocity. SV by CMR was measured directly via PC-CMR and volumetrically using cine-images. Invasive SV and AVA were determined via Fick-principle and Gorlin-formula, respectively. TTE yielded SV and AVA using continuity equation. Gradients were calculated via the modified Bernoulli-equation.ResultsSV by PC-CMR (85 ± 31 ml) correlated strongly (r: 0.73, p < 0.001) with cine-CMR (85 ± 19 ml) without significant bias (lower and upper limits of agreement (LLoA and ULoA): - 41 ml and 44 ml, p = 0.83). In PC-CMR, mean pressure gradient correlated significantly with invasive determination (r: 0.36, p = 0.011). Mean AVA, as determined by PC-CMR during systole (0.78 ± 0.25 cm2), correlated moderately (r: 0.54, p < 0.001) with invasive AVA (0.70 ± 0.23 cm2), resulting in a small bias of 0.08 cm2 (LLoA and ULoA: - 0.36 cm2 and 0.55 cm2, p = 0.017). Inter-methodically, AVA by TTE (0.81 ± 0.23 cm2) compared to invasive determination showed similar correlations (r: 0.58, p < 0.001 with a bias of 0.11 cm2, LLoA and ULoA: - 0.30 and 0.52, p < 0.001) to PC-CMR. Intra- and interobserver reproducibility were excellent for AVA (intraclass-correlation-coefficients of 0.939 and 0.827, respectively).ConclusionsOur novel approach using continuous determination of flow-volumes and velocities with PC-CMR enables simple AVA measurement with no bias to invasive assessment. This approach highlights non-invasive AS grading through CMR, especially when TTE findings are inconclusive.

Project description:BackgroundPatients with thoracic aortic dilatation who undergo annual computed tomography angiography (CTA) are subject to repeated radiation and contrast exposure. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of a non-contrast, respiratory motion-resolved whole-heart cardiovascular magnetic resonance angiography (CMRA) technique against reference standard CTA, for the quantitative assessment of cardiovascular anatomy and monitoring of disease progression in patients with thoracic aortic dilatation. METHODS: Twenty-four patients (68.6 ± 9.8 years) with thoracic aortic dilatation prospectively underwent clinical CTA and research 1.5T CMRA between July 2017 and November 2018. Scans were repeated in 15 patients 1 year later. A prototype free-breathing 3D radial balanced steady-state free-precession whole-heart CMRA sequence was used in combination with compressed sensing-based reconstruction. Area, circumference, and diameter measurements were obtained at seven aortic levels by two experienced and two inexperienced readers. In addition, area and diameter measurements of the cardiac chambers, pulmonary arteries and pulmonary veins were also obtained. Agreement between the two modalities was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analysis, Bland-Altman plots and scatter plots.ResultsArea, circumference and diameter measurements on a per-level analysis showed good or excellent agreement between CTA and CMRA (ICCs > 0.84). Means of differences on Bland-Altman plots were: area 0.0 cm2 [- 1.7; 1.6]; circumference 1.0 mm [- 10.0; 12.0], and diameter 0.6 mm [- 2.6; 3.6]. Area and diameter measurements of the left cardiac chambers showed good agreement (ICCs > 0.80), while moderate to good agreement was observed for the right chambers (all ICCs > 0.56). Similar good to excellent inter-modality agreement was shown for the pulmonary arteries and veins (ICC range 0.79-0.93), with the exception of the left lower pulmonary vein (ICC < 0.51). Inter-reader assessment demonstrated mostly good or excellent agreement for both CTA and CMRA measurements on a per-level analysis (ICCs > 0.64). Difference in maximum aortic diameter measurements at baseline vs follow up showed excellent agreement between CMRA and CTA (ICC = 0.91).ConclusionsThe radial whole-heart CMRA technique combined with respiratory motion-resolved reconstruction provides comparable anatomical measurements of the thoracic aorta and cardiac structures as the reference standard CTA. It could potentially be used to diagnose and monitor patients with thoracic aortic dilatation without exposing them to radiation or contrast media.

Project description:BackgroundCardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) can potentially quantify aortic valve area (AVA) in aortic stenosis (AS) using a single-slice phase contrast (PC) acquisition at valve level: AVA = aortic flow/aortic velocity-time integral (VTI). However, CMR has been shown to underestimate aortic flow in turbulent high velocity jets, due to intra-voxel dephasing. This study investigated the effect of decreasing intra-voxel dephasing by reducing the echo time (TE) on AVA estimates in patients with AS.Method15 patients with moderate or severe AS, were studied with three different TEs (2.8 ms/2.0 ms/1.5 ms), in the main pulmonary artery (MPA), left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) and 0 cm/1 cm/2.5 cm above the aortic valve (AoV). PC estimates of stroke volume (SV) were compared with CMR left ventricular SV measurements and PC peak velocity, VTI and AVA were compared with Doppler echocardiography. CMR estimates of AVA obtained by direct planimetry from cine acquisitions were also compared with the echoAVA.ResultsWith a TE of 2.8 ms, the mean PC SV was similar to the ventricular SV at the MPA, LVOT and AoV0 cm (by Bland-Altman analysis bias +/- 1.96 SD, 1.3 +/- 20.2 mL/-6.8 +/- 21.9 mL/6.5 +/- 50.7 mL respectively), but was significantly lower at AoV1 and AoV2.5 (-29.3 +/- 31.2 mL/-21.1 +/- 35.7 mL). PC peak velocity and VTI underestimated Doppler echo estimates by approximately 10% with only moderate agreement. Shortening the TE from 2.8 to 1.5 msec improved the agreement between ventricular SV and PC SV at AoV0 cm (6.5 +/- 50.7 mL vs 1.5 +/- 37.9 mL respectively) but did not satisfactorily improve the PC SV estimate at AoV1 cm and AoV2.5 cm. Agreement of CMR AVA with echoAVA was improved at TE 1.5 ms (0.00 +/- 0.39 cm2) versus TE 2.8 (0.11 +/- 0.81 cm2). The CMR method which agreed best with echoAVA was direct planimetry (-0.03 cm2 +/- 0.24 cm2).ConclusionAgreement of CMR AVA at the aortic valve level with echo AVA improves with a reduced TE of 1.5 ms. However, flow measurements in the aorta (AoV 1 and 2.5) are underestimated and 95% limits of agreement remain large. Further improvements or novel, more robust techniques are needed in the CMR PC technique in the assessment of AS severity in patients with moderate to severe aortic stenosis.