Cargando…
Clinical assessment of aortic valve stenosis: Comparison between 4D flow MRI and transthoracic echocardiography
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of valvular aortic stenosis (AS) increases as the population ages. Echocardiographic measurements of peak jet velocity (V(peak)), mean pressure gradient (P(mean)), and aortic valve area (AVA) determine AS severity and play a pivotal role in the stratification towards valvu...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7004028/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31257647 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmri.26847 |
_version_ | 1783494645257338880 |
---|---|
author | Adriaans, Bouke P. Westenberg, Jos J.M. van Cauteren, Yvonne J.M. Gerretsen, Suzanne Elbaz, Mohammed S.M. Bekkers, Sebastiaan C.A.M. Veenstra, Leo F. Crijns, Harry J.G.M. Wildberger, Joachim E. Schalla, Simon |
author_facet | Adriaans, Bouke P. Westenberg, Jos J.M. van Cauteren, Yvonne J.M. Gerretsen, Suzanne Elbaz, Mohammed S.M. Bekkers, Sebastiaan C.A.M. Veenstra, Leo F. Crijns, Harry J.G.M. Wildberger, Joachim E. Schalla, Simon |
author_sort | Adriaans, Bouke P. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The prevalence of valvular aortic stenosis (AS) increases as the population ages. Echocardiographic measurements of peak jet velocity (V(peak)), mean pressure gradient (P(mean)), and aortic valve area (AVA) determine AS severity and play a pivotal role in the stratification towards valvular replacement. A multimodality imaging approach might be needed in cases of uncertainty about the actual severity of the stenosis. PURPOSE: To compare four‐dimensional phase‐contrast magnetic resonance (4D PC‐MR), two‐dimensional (2D) PC‐MR, and transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) for quantification of AS. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. POPULATION: Twenty patients with various degrees of AS (69.3 ± 5.0 years). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCES: 4D PC‐MR and 2D PC‐MR at 3T. ASSESSMENT: We compared V(peak), P(mean), and AVA between TTE, 4D PC‐MR, and 2D PC‐MR. Flow eccentricity was quantified by means of normalized flow displacement, and its influence on the accuracy of TTE measurements was investigated. STATISTICAL TESTS: Pearson's correlation, Bland–Altman analysis, paired t‐test, and intraclass correlation coefficient. RESULTS: 4D PC‐MR measured higher V(peak) (r = 0.95, mean difference + 16.4 ± 10.7%, P <0.001), and P(mean) (r = 0.92, mean difference + 14.9 ± 16.0%, P = 0.013), but a less critical AVA (r = 0.80, mean difference + 19.9 ± 20.6%, P = 0.002) than TTE. In contrast, unidirectional 2D PC‐MR substantially underestimated AS severity when compared with TTE. Differences in V(peak) between 4D PC‐MR and TTE showed to be strongly correlated with the eccentricity of the flow jet (r = 0.89, P <0.001). Use of 4D PC‐MR improved the concordance between V(peak) and AVA (from 0.68 to 0.87), and between PG(mean) and AVA (from 0.68 to 0.86). DATA CONCLUSION: 4D PC‐MR improves the concordance between the different AS parameters and could serve as an additional imaging technique next to TTE. Future studies should address the potential value of 4D PC‐MR in patients with discordant echocardiographic parameters. Level of Evidence: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;51:472–480. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7004028 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | John Wiley & Sons, Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-70040282020-02-11 Clinical assessment of aortic valve stenosis: Comparison between 4D flow MRI and transthoracic echocardiography Adriaans, Bouke P. Westenberg, Jos J.M. van Cauteren, Yvonne J.M. Gerretsen, Suzanne Elbaz, Mohammed S.M. Bekkers, Sebastiaan C.A.M. Veenstra, Leo F. Crijns, Harry J.G.M. Wildberger, Joachim E. Schalla, Simon J Magn Reson Imaging Original Research BACKGROUND: The prevalence of valvular aortic stenosis (AS) increases as the population ages. Echocardiographic measurements of peak jet velocity (V(peak)), mean pressure gradient (P(mean)), and aortic valve area (AVA) determine AS severity and play a pivotal role in the stratification towards valvular replacement. A multimodality imaging approach might be needed in cases of uncertainty about the actual severity of the stenosis. PURPOSE: To compare four‐dimensional phase‐contrast magnetic resonance (4D PC‐MR), two‐dimensional (2D) PC‐MR, and transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) for quantification of AS. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. POPULATION: Twenty patients with various degrees of AS (69.3 ± 5.0 years). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCES: 4D PC‐MR and 2D PC‐MR at 3T. ASSESSMENT: We compared V(peak), P(mean), and AVA between TTE, 4D PC‐MR, and 2D PC‐MR. Flow eccentricity was quantified by means of normalized flow displacement, and its influence on the accuracy of TTE measurements was investigated. STATISTICAL TESTS: Pearson's correlation, Bland–Altman analysis, paired t‐test, and intraclass correlation coefficient. RESULTS: 4D PC‐MR measured higher V(peak) (r = 0.95, mean difference + 16.4 ± 10.7%, P <0.001), and P(mean) (r = 0.92, mean difference + 14.9 ± 16.0%, P = 0.013), but a less critical AVA (r = 0.80, mean difference + 19.9 ± 20.6%, P = 0.002) than TTE. In contrast, unidirectional 2D PC‐MR substantially underestimated AS severity when compared with TTE. Differences in V(peak) between 4D PC‐MR and TTE showed to be strongly correlated with the eccentricity of the flow jet (r = 0.89, P <0.001). Use of 4D PC‐MR improved the concordance between V(peak) and AVA (from 0.68 to 0.87), and between PG(mean) and AVA (from 0.68 to 0.86). DATA CONCLUSION: 4D PC‐MR improves the concordance between the different AS parameters and could serve as an additional imaging technique next to TTE. Future studies should address the potential value of 4D PC‐MR in patients with discordant echocardiographic parameters. Level of Evidence: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;51:472–480. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2019-06-30 2020-02 /pmc/articles/PMC7004028/ /pubmed/31257647 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmri.26847 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. |
spellingShingle | Original Research Adriaans, Bouke P. Westenberg, Jos J.M. van Cauteren, Yvonne J.M. Gerretsen, Suzanne Elbaz, Mohammed S.M. Bekkers, Sebastiaan C.A.M. Veenstra, Leo F. Crijns, Harry J.G.M. Wildberger, Joachim E. Schalla, Simon Clinical assessment of aortic valve stenosis: Comparison between 4D flow MRI and transthoracic echocardiography |
title | Clinical assessment of aortic valve stenosis: Comparison between 4D flow MRI and transthoracic echocardiography |
title_full | Clinical assessment of aortic valve stenosis: Comparison between 4D flow MRI and transthoracic echocardiography |
title_fullStr | Clinical assessment of aortic valve stenosis: Comparison between 4D flow MRI and transthoracic echocardiography |
title_full_unstemmed | Clinical assessment of aortic valve stenosis: Comparison between 4D flow MRI and transthoracic echocardiography |
title_short | Clinical assessment of aortic valve stenosis: Comparison between 4D flow MRI and transthoracic echocardiography |
title_sort | clinical assessment of aortic valve stenosis: comparison between 4d flow mri and transthoracic echocardiography |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7004028/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31257647 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmri.26847 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT adriaansboukep clinicalassessmentofaorticvalvestenosiscomparisonbetween4dflowmriandtransthoracicechocardiography AT westenbergjosjm clinicalassessmentofaorticvalvestenosiscomparisonbetween4dflowmriandtransthoracicechocardiography AT vancauterenyvonnejm clinicalassessmentofaorticvalvestenosiscomparisonbetween4dflowmriandtransthoracicechocardiography AT gerretsensuzanne clinicalassessmentofaorticvalvestenosiscomparisonbetween4dflowmriandtransthoracicechocardiography AT elbazmohammedsm clinicalassessmentofaorticvalvestenosiscomparisonbetween4dflowmriandtransthoracicechocardiography AT bekkerssebastiaancam clinicalassessmentofaorticvalvestenosiscomparisonbetween4dflowmriandtransthoracicechocardiography AT veenstraleof clinicalassessmentofaorticvalvestenosiscomparisonbetween4dflowmriandtransthoracicechocardiography AT crijnsharryjgm clinicalassessmentofaorticvalvestenosiscomparisonbetween4dflowmriandtransthoracicechocardiography AT wildbergerjoachime clinicalassessmentofaorticvalvestenosiscomparisonbetween4dflowmriandtransthoracicechocardiography AT schallasimon clinicalassessmentofaorticvalvestenosiscomparisonbetween4dflowmriandtransthoracicechocardiography |