Cargando…
Validation of aortic valve pressure gradient quantification using semi-automated 4D flow CMR pipeline
OBJECTIVE: Doppler echocardiographic aortic valve peak velocity and peak pressure gradient assessment across the aortic valve (AV) is the mainstay for diagnosing aortic stenosis. Four-dimensional flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance (4D flow CMR) is emerging as a valuable diagnostic tool for estim...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9052497/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35488286 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-06033-z |
_version_ | 1784696795861876736 |
---|---|
author | Grafton-Clarke, Ciaran Njoku, Paul Aben, Jean-Paul Ledoux, Leon Zhong, Liang Westenberg, Jos Swift, Andrew Archer, Gareth Wild, James Hose, Rod Flather, Marcus Vassiliou, Vassilios S. Garg, Pankaj |
author_facet | Grafton-Clarke, Ciaran Njoku, Paul Aben, Jean-Paul Ledoux, Leon Zhong, Liang Westenberg, Jos Swift, Andrew Archer, Gareth Wild, James Hose, Rod Flather, Marcus Vassiliou, Vassilios S. Garg, Pankaj |
author_sort | Grafton-Clarke, Ciaran |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: Doppler echocardiographic aortic valve peak velocity and peak pressure gradient assessment across the aortic valve (AV) is the mainstay for diagnosing aortic stenosis. Four-dimensional flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance (4D flow CMR) is emerging as a valuable diagnostic tool for estimating the peak pressure drop across the aortic valve, but assessment remains cumbersome. We aimed to validate a novel semi-automated pipeline 4D flow CMR method of assessing peak aortic value pressure gradient (AVPG) using the commercially available software solution, CAAS MR Solutions, against invasive angiographic methods. RESULTS: We enrolled 11 patients with severe AS on echocardiography from the EurValve programme. All patients had pre-intervention doppler echocardiography, invasive cardiac catheterisation with peak pressure drop assessment across the AV and 4D flow CMR. The peak AVPG was 51.9 ± 35.2 mmHg using the invasive pressure drop method and 52.2 ± 29.2 mmHg for the 4D flow CMR method (semi-automated pipeline), with good correlation between the two methods (r = 0.70, p = 0.017). Assessment of AVPG by 4D flow CMR using the novel semi-automated pipeline method shows excellent agreement to invasive assessment when compared to doppler-based methods and advocate for its use as complementary to echocardiography. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13104-022-06033-z. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9052497 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-90524972022-04-30 Validation of aortic valve pressure gradient quantification using semi-automated 4D flow CMR pipeline Grafton-Clarke, Ciaran Njoku, Paul Aben, Jean-Paul Ledoux, Leon Zhong, Liang Westenberg, Jos Swift, Andrew Archer, Gareth Wild, James Hose, Rod Flather, Marcus Vassiliou, Vassilios S. Garg, Pankaj BMC Res Notes Research Note OBJECTIVE: Doppler echocardiographic aortic valve peak velocity and peak pressure gradient assessment across the aortic valve (AV) is the mainstay for diagnosing aortic stenosis. Four-dimensional flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance (4D flow CMR) is emerging as a valuable diagnostic tool for estimating the peak pressure drop across the aortic valve, but assessment remains cumbersome. We aimed to validate a novel semi-automated pipeline 4D flow CMR method of assessing peak aortic value pressure gradient (AVPG) using the commercially available software solution, CAAS MR Solutions, against invasive angiographic methods. RESULTS: We enrolled 11 patients with severe AS on echocardiography from the EurValve programme. All patients had pre-intervention doppler echocardiography, invasive cardiac catheterisation with peak pressure drop assessment across the AV and 4D flow CMR. The peak AVPG was 51.9 ± 35.2 mmHg using the invasive pressure drop method and 52.2 ± 29.2 mmHg for the 4D flow CMR method (semi-automated pipeline), with good correlation between the two methods (r = 0.70, p = 0.017). Assessment of AVPG by 4D flow CMR using the novel semi-automated pipeline method shows excellent agreement to invasive assessment when compared to doppler-based methods and advocate for its use as complementary to echocardiography. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13104-022-06033-z. BioMed Central 2022-04-29 /pmc/articles/PMC9052497/ /pubmed/35488286 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-06033-z Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/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/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://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 Note Grafton-Clarke, Ciaran Njoku, Paul Aben, Jean-Paul Ledoux, Leon Zhong, Liang Westenberg, Jos Swift, Andrew Archer, Gareth Wild, James Hose, Rod Flather, Marcus Vassiliou, Vassilios S. Garg, Pankaj Validation of aortic valve pressure gradient quantification using semi-automated 4D flow CMR pipeline |
title | Validation of aortic valve pressure gradient quantification using semi-automated 4D flow CMR pipeline |
title_full | Validation of aortic valve pressure gradient quantification using semi-automated 4D flow CMR pipeline |
title_fullStr | Validation of aortic valve pressure gradient quantification using semi-automated 4D flow CMR pipeline |
title_full_unstemmed | Validation of aortic valve pressure gradient quantification using semi-automated 4D flow CMR pipeline |
title_short | Validation of aortic valve pressure gradient quantification using semi-automated 4D flow CMR pipeline |
title_sort | validation of aortic valve pressure gradient quantification using semi-automated 4d flow cmr pipeline |
topic | Research Note |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9052497/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35488286 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-06033-z |
work_keys_str_mv | AT graftonclarkeciaran validationofaorticvalvepressuregradientquantificationusingsemiautomated4dflowcmrpipeline AT njokupaul validationofaorticvalvepressuregradientquantificationusingsemiautomated4dflowcmrpipeline AT abenjeanpaul validationofaorticvalvepressuregradientquantificationusingsemiautomated4dflowcmrpipeline AT ledouxleon validationofaorticvalvepressuregradientquantificationusingsemiautomated4dflowcmrpipeline AT zhongliang validationofaorticvalvepressuregradientquantificationusingsemiautomated4dflowcmrpipeline AT westenbergjos validationofaorticvalvepressuregradientquantificationusingsemiautomated4dflowcmrpipeline AT swiftandrew validationofaorticvalvepressuregradientquantificationusingsemiautomated4dflowcmrpipeline AT archergareth validationofaorticvalvepressuregradientquantificationusingsemiautomated4dflowcmrpipeline AT wildjames validationofaorticvalvepressuregradientquantificationusingsemiautomated4dflowcmrpipeline AT hoserod validationofaorticvalvepressuregradientquantificationusingsemiautomated4dflowcmrpipeline AT flathermarcus validationofaorticvalvepressuregradientquantificationusingsemiautomated4dflowcmrpipeline AT vassiliouvassilioss validationofaorticvalvepressuregradientquantificationusingsemiautomated4dflowcmrpipeline AT gargpankaj validationofaorticvalvepressuregradientquantificationusingsemiautomated4dflowcmrpipeline |