Cargando…
Validation of four-dimensional flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance for aortic stenosis assessment
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....
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7324609/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32601326 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-66659-6 |
_version_ | 1783551973462638592 |
---|---|
author | Archer, Gareth T. Elhawaz, Alaa Barker, Natasha Fidock, Benjamin Rothman, Alexander van der Geest, R. J. Hose, Rod Briffa, Norman Hall, Ian R. Grech, Ever Bissell, Malenka Al-Mohammad, Abdallah Treibel, Thomas A. Swift, Andrew J. Wild, James M. Garg, Pankaj |
author_facet | Archer, Gareth T. Elhawaz, Alaa Barker, Natasha Fidock, Benjamin Rothman, Alexander van der Geest, R. J. Hose, Rod Briffa, Norman Hall, Ian R. Grech, Ever Bissell, Malenka Al-Mohammad, Abdallah Treibel, Thomas A. Swift, Andrew J. Wild, James M. Garg, Pankaj |
author_sort | Archer, Gareth T. |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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 < 0.01) but only with Doppler EOA (r = 0.45, P = 0.01). Left ventricular mass regression was better associated with 4D flow derived pressure gradient change (r = 0.64, P = 0.04). 4D flow CMR offers an alternative method for non-invasive assessment of AS. In addition, 4D flow derived valve metrics have a superior association to prognostically relevant 6MWT and LV mass regression than echocardiography. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7324609 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-73246092020-07-01 Validation of four-dimensional flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance for aortic stenosis assessment Archer, Gareth T. Elhawaz, Alaa Barker, Natasha Fidock, Benjamin Rothman, Alexander van der Geest, R. J. Hose, Rod Briffa, Norman Hall, Ian R. Grech, Ever Bissell, Malenka Al-Mohammad, Abdallah Treibel, Thomas A. Swift, Andrew J. Wild, James M. Garg, Pankaj Sci Rep Article 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 < 0.01) but only with Doppler EOA (r = 0.45, P = 0.01). Left ventricular mass regression was better associated with 4D flow derived pressure gradient change (r = 0.64, P = 0.04). 4D flow CMR offers an alternative method for non-invasive assessment of AS. In addition, 4D flow derived valve metrics have a superior association to prognostically relevant 6MWT and LV mass regression than echocardiography. Nature Publishing Group UK 2020-06-29 /pmc/articles/PMC7324609/ /pubmed/32601326 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-66659-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Article Archer, Gareth T. Elhawaz, Alaa Barker, Natasha Fidock, Benjamin Rothman, Alexander van der Geest, R. J. Hose, Rod Briffa, Norman Hall, Ian R. Grech, Ever Bissell, Malenka Al-Mohammad, Abdallah Treibel, Thomas A. Swift, Andrew J. Wild, James M. Garg, Pankaj Validation of four-dimensional flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance for aortic stenosis assessment |
title | Validation of four-dimensional flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance for aortic stenosis assessment |
title_full | Validation of four-dimensional flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance for aortic stenosis assessment |
title_fullStr | Validation of four-dimensional flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance for aortic stenosis assessment |
title_full_unstemmed | Validation of four-dimensional flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance for aortic stenosis assessment |
title_short | Validation of four-dimensional flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance for aortic stenosis assessment |
title_sort | validation of four-dimensional flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance for aortic stenosis assessment |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7324609/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32601326 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-66659-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT archergaretht validationoffourdimensionalflowcardiovascularmagneticresonanceforaorticstenosisassessment AT elhawazalaa validationoffourdimensionalflowcardiovascularmagneticresonanceforaorticstenosisassessment AT barkernatasha validationoffourdimensionalflowcardiovascularmagneticresonanceforaorticstenosisassessment AT fidockbenjamin validationoffourdimensionalflowcardiovascularmagneticresonanceforaorticstenosisassessment AT rothmanalexander validationoffourdimensionalflowcardiovascularmagneticresonanceforaorticstenosisassessment AT vandergeestrj validationoffourdimensionalflowcardiovascularmagneticresonanceforaorticstenosisassessment AT hoserod validationoffourdimensionalflowcardiovascularmagneticresonanceforaorticstenosisassessment AT briffanorman validationoffourdimensionalflowcardiovascularmagneticresonanceforaorticstenosisassessment AT hallianr validationoffourdimensionalflowcardiovascularmagneticresonanceforaorticstenosisassessment AT grechever validationoffourdimensionalflowcardiovascularmagneticresonanceforaorticstenosisassessment AT bissellmalenka validationoffourdimensionalflowcardiovascularmagneticresonanceforaorticstenosisassessment AT almohammadabdallah validationoffourdimensionalflowcardiovascularmagneticresonanceforaorticstenosisassessment AT treibelthomasa validationoffourdimensionalflowcardiovascularmagneticresonanceforaorticstenosisassessment AT swiftandrewj validationoffourdimensionalflowcardiovascularmagneticresonanceforaorticstenosisassessment AT wildjamesm validationoffourdimensionalflowcardiovascularmagneticresonanceforaorticstenosisassessment AT gargpankaj validationoffourdimensionalflowcardiovascularmagneticresonanceforaorticstenosisassessment |