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....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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