Dataset Information

A novel approach to determine aortic valve area with phase-contrast cardiovascular magnetic resonance.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Transthoracic 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.

Methods

A 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.

Results

SV 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).

Conclusions

Our 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.

SUBMITTER: Troger F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8734220 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:PurposeCardiovascular diseases remain the number one death cause worldwide. Preclinical 4D flow phase contrast magnetic resonance imaging can provide substantial insights in the analysis of aortic pathophysiologies in various animal models. These insights may allow a better understanding of pathophysiologies, therapy monitoring, and can possibly be translated to humans. This study provides a framework to acquire the velocity field within the aortic arch. It analyses important flow values at different locations within the aortic arch. Imaging parameters with high temporal and spatial resolution are provided, that still allow combining this time-consuming method with other necessary imaging-protocols.MethodsA new setup was established where a prospectively gated 4D phase contrast sequence is combined with a highly sensitive cryogenic coil on a preclinical magnetic resonance scanner. The sequence was redesigned to maintain a close to steady state condition of the longitudinal magnetization and hence to overcome steady state artifacts. Imaging parameters were optimized to provide high spatial and temporal resolution. Pathline visualizations were generated from the acquired velocity data in order to display complex flow patterns.ResultsOur setup allows data acquisition with at least two times the rate than that of previous publications based on Cartesian encoding, at an improved image quality. The "steady state" sequence reduces observed artifacts and provides uniform image intensity over the heart cycle. This made possible quantification of blood speed and wall shear stress (WSS) within the aorta and its branches. The highest velocities were observed in the ascending aorta with 137.5 ± 8 cm/s. Peak velocity values in the Brachiocephalic trunk were 57 ± 12 cm/s. Quantification showed that the peak flow occurs around 20 ms post R-wave in the ascending aorta. The highest mean axial wall shear stress was observed in the analysis plane between the left common carotid artery (LCCA) and the left subclavian artery. A stable image quality allows visualizing complex flow patterns by means of streamlines and for the first time, to the best of our knowledge, pathline visualizations from 4D flow MRI in mice.ConclusionThe described setup allows analyzing pathophysiologies in mouse models of cardiovascular diseases in the aorta and its branches with better image quality and higher spatial and temporal resolution than previous Cartesian publications. Pathlines provide an advanced analysis of complex flow patterns in the murine aorta. An imaging protocol is provided that offers the possibility to acquire the aortic arch at sufficiently high resolution in less than one hour. This allows the combination of the flow assessment with other multifunctional imaging protocols.

Project description:ObjectivesBicuspid aortic valve patients can develop thoracic aortic aneurysms and therefore require serial imaging to monitor aortic growth. This study investigates the reliability of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CEMRA) volumetry compared with 2-dimensional diameter measurements to identify thoracic aortic aneurysm growth.Materials and methodsA retrospective, institutional review board-approved, and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant study was conducted on 20 bicuspid aortic valve patients (45 ± 8.9 years, 20% women) who underwent serial CEMRA with a minimum imaging follow-up of 11 months. Magnetic resonance imaging was performed at 1.5 T with electrocardiogram-gated, time-resolved CEMRA. Independent observers measured the diameter at the sinuses of Valsalva (SOVs) and mid ascending aorta (MAA) as well as ascending aorta volume between the aortic valve annulus and innominate branch. Intraobserver/interobserver coefficient of variation (COV) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were computed to assess reliability. Growth rates were calculated and assessed by Student t test (P < 0.05, significant). The diameter of maximal growth (DMG), defined as the diameter at SOV or MAA with the faster growth rate, was recorded.ResultsThe mean time of follow-up was 2.6 ± 0.82 years. The intraobserver COV was 0.01 for SOV, 0.02 for MAA, and 0.02 for volume (interobserver COV: 0.02, 0.03, 0.04, respectively). The ICC was 0.83 for SOV, 0.86 for MAA, 0.90 for DMG, and 0.95 for volume. Average aortic measurements at baseline and (follow-up) were 42 ± 3 mm (42 ± 3 mm, P = 0.11) at SOV, 46 ± 4 mm (47 ± 4 mm, P < 0.05) at MAA, and 130 ± 23 mL (144 ± 24 mL, P < 0.05). Average size changes were 0.2 ± 0.6 mm/y (1% ± 2%) at SOV, 0.5 ± 0.8 mm/y (1% ± 2%) at MAA, 0.7 ± 0.7 mm/y (2% ± 2%) at DMG, and 6 ± 3 mL/y (4% ± 3%) with volumetry.ConclusionsThree-dimensional CEMRA volumetry exhibited a larger effect when examining percentage growth, a better ICC, and a marginally lower COV. Volumetry may be more sensitive to growth and possibly less affected by error than diameter measurements.

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.