Cargando…

Functional assessment of bioprosthetic mitral valves by cardiovascular magnetic resonance: An in vitro validation and comparison to Doppler echocardiography

BACKGROUND: A comprehensive non-invasive evaluation of bioprosthetic mitral valve (BMV) function can be challenging. We describe a novel method to assess BMV effective orifice area (EOA) based on phase contrast (PC) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) data. We compare the performance of this new...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Maragiannis, Dimitrios, Jackson, Matthew S., Autry, Kyle, Flores Arredondo, Jose H., Aggeli, Constantina, Tousoulis, Dimitrios, Zoghbi, William A., Shah, Dipan J., Little, Stephen H.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7392719/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32727590
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12968-020-00635-x
_version_ 1783564903613726720
author Maragiannis, Dimitrios
Jackson, Matthew S.
Autry, Kyle
Flores Arredondo, Jose H.
Aggeli, Constantina
Tousoulis, Dimitrios
Zoghbi, William A.
Shah, Dipan J.
Little, Stephen H.
author_facet Maragiannis, Dimitrios
Jackson, Matthew S.
Autry, Kyle
Flores Arredondo, Jose H.
Aggeli, Constantina
Tousoulis, Dimitrios
Zoghbi, William A.
Shah, Dipan J.
Little, Stephen H.
author_sort Maragiannis, Dimitrios
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: A comprehensive non-invasive evaluation of bioprosthetic mitral valve (BMV) function can be challenging. We describe a novel method to assess BMV effective orifice area (EOA) based on phase contrast (PC) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) data. We compare the performance of this new method to Doppler and in vitro reference standards. METHODS: Four sizes of normal BMVs (27, 29, 31, 33 mm) and 4 stenotic BMVs (27 mm and 29 mm, with mild or severe leaflet obstruction) were evaluated using a CMR- compatible flow loop. BMVs were evaluated with PC-CMR and Doppler methods under flow conditions of; 70 mL, 90 mL and 110 mL/beat (n = 24). PC-EOA was calculated as PC-CMR flow volume divided by the PC- time velocity integral (TVI). RESULTS: PC-CMR measurements of the diastolic peak velocity and TVI correlated strongly with Doppler values (r = 0.99, P < 0.001 and r = 0.99, P < 0.001, respectively). Across all conditions tested, the Doppler and PC-CMR measurement of EOA (1.4 ± 0.5 vs 1.5 ± 0.7 cm(2), respectively) correlated highly (r = 0.99, P < 0.001), with a minimum bias of 0.13 cm(2), and narrow limits of agreement (− 0.2 to 0.5 cm(2)). CONCLUSION: We describe a novel method to assess BMV function based on PC measures of transvalvular flow volume and velocity integration. PC-CMR methods can be used to accurately measure EOA for both normal and stenotic BMV’s and may provide an important new parameter of BMV function when Doppler methods are unobtainable or unreliable.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7392719
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73927192020-08-04 Functional assessment of bioprosthetic mitral valves by cardiovascular magnetic resonance: An in vitro validation and comparison to Doppler echocardiography Maragiannis, Dimitrios Jackson, Matthew S. Autry, Kyle Flores Arredondo, Jose H. Aggeli, Constantina Tousoulis, Dimitrios Zoghbi, William A. Shah, Dipan J. Little, Stephen H. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Research BACKGROUND: A comprehensive non-invasive evaluation of bioprosthetic mitral valve (BMV) function can be challenging. We describe a novel method to assess BMV effective orifice area (EOA) based on phase contrast (PC) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) data. We compare the performance of this new method to Doppler and in vitro reference standards. METHODS: Four sizes of normal BMVs (27, 29, 31, 33 mm) and 4 stenotic BMVs (27 mm and 29 mm, with mild or severe leaflet obstruction) were evaluated using a CMR- compatible flow loop. BMVs were evaluated with PC-CMR and Doppler methods under flow conditions of; 70 mL, 90 mL and 110 mL/beat (n = 24). PC-EOA was calculated as PC-CMR flow volume divided by the PC- time velocity integral (TVI). RESULTS: PC-CMR measurements of the diastolic peak velocity and TVI correlated strongly with Doppler values (r = 0.99, P < 0.001 and r = 0.99, P < 0.001, respectively). Across all conditions tested, the Doppler and PC-CMR measurement of EOA (1.4 ± 0.5 vs 1.5 ± 0.7 cm(2), respectively) correlated highly (r = 0.99, P < 0.001), with a minimum bias of 0.13 cm(2), and narrow limits of agreement (− 0.2 to 0.5 cm(2)). CONCLUSION: We describe a novel method to assess BMV function based on PC measures of transvalvular flow volume and velocity integration. PC-CMR methods can be used to accurately measure EOA for both normal and stenotic BMV’s and may provide an important new parameter of BMV function when Doppler methods are unobtainable or unreliable. BioMed Central 2020-07-30 /pmc/articles/PMC7392719/ /pubmed/32727590 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12968-020-00635-x Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis 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 licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence 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 licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Maragiannis, Dimitrios
Jackson, Matthew S.
Autry, Kyle
Flores Arredondo, Jose H.
Aggeli, Constantina
Tousoulis, Dimitrios
Zoghbi, William A.
Shah, Dipan J.
Little, Stephen H.
Functional assessment of bioprosthetic mitral valves by cardiovascular magnetic resonance: An in vitro validation and comparison to Doppler echocardiography
title Functional assessment of bioprosthetic mitral valves by cardiovascular magnetic resonance: An in vitro validation and comparison to Doppler echocardiography
title_full Functional assessment of bioprosthetic mitral valves by cardiovascular magnetic resonance: An in vitro validation and comparison to Doppler echocardiography
title_fullStr Functional assessment of bioprosthetic mitral valves by cardiovascular magnetic resonance: An in vitro validation and comparison to Doppler echocardiography
title_full_unstemmed Functional assessment of bioprosthetic mitral valves by cardiovascular magnetic resonance: An in vitro validation and comparison to Doppler echocardiography
title_short Functional assessment of bioprosthetic mitral valves by cardiovascular magnetic resonance: An in vitro validation and comparison to Doppler echocardiography
title_sort functional assessment of bioprosthetic mitral valves by cardiovascular magnetic resonance: an in vitro validation and comparison to doppler echocardiography
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7392719/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32727590
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12968-020-00635-x
work_keys_str_mv AT maragiannisdimitrios functionalassessmentofbioprostheticmitralvalvesbycardiovascularmagneticresonanceaninvitrovalidationandcomparisontodopplerechocardiography
AT jacksonmatthews functionalassessmentofbioprostheticmitralvalvesbycardiovascularmagneticresonanceaninvitrovalidationandcomparisontodopplerechocardiography
AT autrykyle functionalassessmentofbioprostheticmitralvalvesbycardiovascularmagneticresonanceaninvitrovalidationandcomparisontodopplerechocardiography
AT floresarredondojoseh functionalassessmentofbioprostheticmitralvalvesbycardiovascularmagneticresonanceaninvitrovalidationandcomparisontodopplerechocardiography
AT aggeliconstantina functionalassessmentofbioprostheticmitralvalvesbycardiovascularmagneticresonanceaninvitrovalidationandcomparisontodopplerechocardiography
AT tousoulisdimitrios functionalassessmentofbioprostheticmitralvalvesbycardiovascularmagneticresonanceaninvitrovalidationandcomparisontodopplerechocardiography
AT zoghbiwilliama functionalassessmentofbioprostheticmitralvalvesbycardiovascularmagneticresonanceaninvitrovalidationandcomparisontodopplerechocardiography
AT shahdipanj functionalassessmentofbioprostheticmitralvalvesbycardiovascularmagneticresonanceaninvitrovalidationandcomparisontodopplerechocardiography
AT littlestephenh functionalassessmentofbioprostheticmitralvalvesbycardiovascularmagneticresonanceaninvitrovalidationandcomparisontodopplerechocardiography