Cargando…
Non-invasive cardiovascular magnetic resonance assessment of pressure recovery distance after aortic valve stenosis
BACKGROUND: Decisions in the management of aortic stenosis are based on the peak pressure drop, captured by Doppler echocardiography, whereas gold standard catheterization measurements assess the net pressure drop but are limited by associated risks. The relationship between these two measurements,...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9885657/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36717885 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12968-023-00914-3 |
_version_ | 1784879974690324480 |
---|---|
author | Fernandes, Joao Filipe Gill, Harminder Nio, Amanda Faraci, Alessandro Galli, Valeria Marlevi, David Bissell, Malenka Ha, Hojin Rajani, Ronak Mortier, Peter Myerson, Saul G. Dyverfeldt, Petter Ebbers, Tino Nordsletten, David A. Lamata, Pablo |
author_facet | Fernandes, Joao Filipe Gill, Harminder Nio, Amanda Faraci, Alessandro Galli, Valeria Marlevi, David Bissell, Malenka Ha, Hojin Rajani, Ronak Mortier, Peter Myerson, Saul G. Dyverfeldt, Petter Ebbers, Tino Nordsletten, David A. Lamata, Pablo |
author_sort | Fernandes, Joao Filipe |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Decisions in the management of aortic stenosis are based on the peak pressure drop, captured by Doppler echocardiography, whereas gold standard catheterization measurements assess the net pressure drop but are limited by associated risks. The relationship between these two measurements, peak and net pressure drop, is dictated by the pressure recovery along the ascending aorta which is mainly caused by turbulence energy dissipation. Currently, pressure recovery is considered to occur within the first 40–50 mm distally from the aortic valve, albeit there is inconsistency across interventionist centers on where/how to position the catheter to capture the net pressure drop. METHODS: We developed a non-invasive method to assess the pressure recovery distance based on blood flow momentum via 4D Flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). Multi-center acquisitions included physical flow phantoms with different stenotic valve configurations to validate this method, first against reference measurements and then against turbulent energy dissipation (respectively n = 8 and n = 28 acquisitions) and to investigate the relationship between peak and net pressure drops. Finally, we explored the potential errors of cardiac catheterisation pressure recordings as a result of neglecting the pressure recovery distance in a clinical bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) cohort of n = 32 patients. RESULTS: In-vitro assessment of pressure recovery distance based on flow momentum achieved an average error of 1.8 ± 8.4 mm when compared to reference pressure sensors in the first phantom workbench. The momentum pressure recovery distance and the turbulent energy dissipation distance showed no statistical difference (mean difference of 2.8 ± 5.4 mm, R(2) = 0.93) in the second phantom workbench. A linear correlation was observed between peak and net pressure drops, however, with strong dependences on the valvular morphology. Finally, in the BAV cohort the pressure recovery distance was 78.8 ± 34.3 mm from vena contracta, which is significantly longer than currently accepted in clinical practise (40–50 mm), and 37.5% of patients displayed a pressure recovery distance beyond the end of the ascending aorta. CONCLUSION: The non-invasive assessment of the distance to pressure recovery is possible by tracking momentum via 4D Flow CMR. Recovery is not always complete at the ascending aorta, and catheterised recordings will overestimate the net pressure drop in those situations. There is a need to re-evaluate the methods that characterise the haemodynamic burden caused by aortic stenosis as currently clinically accepted pressure recovery distance is an underestimation. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12968-023-00914-3. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9885657 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-98856572023-01-31 Non-invasive cardiovascular magnetic resonance assessment of pressure recovery distance after aortic valve stenosis Fernandes, Joao Filipe Gill, Harminder Nio, Amanda Faraci, Alessandro Galli, Valeria Marlevi, David Bissell, Malenka Ha, Hojin Rajani, Ronak Mortier, Peter Myerson, Saul G. Dyverfeldt, Petter Ebbers, Tino Nordsletten, David A. Lamata, Pablo J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Research BACKGROUND: Decisions in the management of aortic stenosis are based on the peak pressure drop, captured by Doppler echocardiography, whereas gold standard catheterization measurements assess the net pressure drop but are limited by associated risks. The relationship between these two measurements, peak and net pressure drop, is dictated by the pressure recovery along the ascending aorta which is mainly caused by turbulence energy dissipation. Currently, pressure recovery is considered to occur within the first 40–50 mm distally from the aortic valve, albeit there is inconsistency across interventionist centers on where/how to position the catheter to capture the net pressure drop. METHODS: We developed a non-invasive method to assess the pressure recovery distance based on blood flow momentum via 4D Flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). Multi-center acquisitions included physical flow phantoms with different stenotic valve configurations to validate this method, first against reference measurements and then against turbulent energy dissipation (respectively n = 8 and n = 28 acquisitions) and to investigate the relationship between peak and net pressure drops. Finally, we explored the potential errors of cardiac catheterisation pressure recordings as a result of neglecting the pressure recovery distance in a clinical bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) cohort of n = 32 patients. RESULTS: In-vitro assessment of pressure recovery distance based on flow momentum achieved an average error of 1.8 ± 8.4 mm when compared to reference pressure sensors in the first phantom workbench. The momentum pressure recovery distance and the turbulent energy dissipation distance showed no statistical difference (mean difference of 2.8 ± 5.4 mm, R(2) = 0.93) in the second phantom workbench. A linear correlation was observed between peak and net pressure drops, however, with strong dependences on the valvular morphology. Finally, in the BAV cohort the pressure recovery distance was 78.8 ± 34.3 mm from vena contracta, which is significantly longer than currently accepted in clinical practise (40–50 mm), and 37.5% of patients displayed a pressure recovery distance beyond the end of the ascending aorta. CONCLUSION: The non-invasive assessment of the distance to pressure recovery is possible by tracking momentum via 4D Flow CMR. Recovery is not always complete at the ascending aorta, and catheterised recordings will overestimate the net pressure drop in those situations. There is a need to re-evaluate the methods that characterise the haemodynamic burden caused by aortic stenosis as currently clinically accepted pressure recovery distance is an underestimation. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12968-023-00914-3. BioMed Central 2023-01-30 /pmc/articles/PMC9885657/ /pubmed/36717885 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12968-023-00914-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 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 Fernandes, Joao Filipe Gill, Harminder Nio, Amanda Faraci, Alessandro Galli, Valeria Marlevi, David Bissell, Malenka Ha, Hojin Rajani, Ronak Mortier, Peter Myerson, Saul G. Dyverfeldt, Petter Ebbers, Tino Nordsletten, David A. Lamata, Pablo Non-invasive cardiovascular magnetic resonance assessment of pressure recovery distance after aortic valve stenosis |
title | Non-invasive cardiovascular magnetic resonance assessment of pressure recovery distance after aortic valve stenosis |
title_full | Non-invasive cardiovascular magnetic resonance assessment of pressure recovery distance after aortic valve stenosis |
title_fullStr | Non-invasive cardiovascular magnetic resonance assessment of pressure recovery distance after aortic valve stenosis |
title_full_unstemmed | Non-invasive cardiovascular magnetic resonance assessment of pressure recovery distance after aortic valve stenosis |
title_short | Non-invasive cardiovascular magnetic resonance assessment of pressure recovery distance after aortic valve stenosis |
title_sort | non-invasive cardiovascular magnetic resonance assessment of pressure recovery distance after aortic valve stenosis |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9885657/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36717885 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12968-023-00914-3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT fernandesjoaofilipe noninvasivecardiovascularmagneticresonanceassessmentofpressurerecoverydistanceafteraorticvalvestenosis AT gillharminder noninvasivecardiovascularmagneticresonanceassessmentofpressurerecoverydistanceafteraorticvalvestenosis AT nioamanda noninvasivecardiovascularmagneticresonanceassessmentofpressurerecoverydistanceafteraorticvalvestenosis AT faracialessandro noninvasivecardiovascularmagneticresonanceassessmentofpressurerecoverydistanceafteraorticvalvestenosis AT gallivaleria noninvasivecardiovascularmagneticresonanceassessmentofpressurerecoverydistanceafteraorticvalvestenosis AT marlevidavid noninvasivecardiovascularmagneticresonanceassessmentofpressurerecoverydistanceafteraorticvalvestenosis AT bissellmalenka noninvasivecardiovascularmagneticresonanceassessmentofpressurerecoverydistanceafteraorticvalvestenosis AT hahojin noninvasivecardiovascularmagneticresonanceassessmentofpressurerecoverydistanceafteraorticvalvestenosis AT rajanironak noninvasivecardiovascularmagneticresonanceassessmentofpressurerecoverydistanceafteraorticvalvestenosis AT mortierpeter noninvasivecardiovascularmagneticresonanceassessmentofpressurerecoverydistanceafteraorticvalvestenosis AT myersonsaulg noninvasivecardiovascularmagneticresonanceassessmentofpressurerecoverydistanceafteraorticvalvestenosis AT dyverfeldtpetter noninvasivecardiovascularmagneticresonanceassessmentofpressurerecoverydistanceafteraorticvalvestenosis AT ebberstino noninvasivecardiovascularmagneticresonanceassessmentofpressurerecoverydistanceafteraorticvalvestenosis AT nordslettendavida noninvasivecardiovascularmagneticresonanceassessmentofpressurerecoverydistanceafteraorticvalvestenosis AT lamatapablo noninvasivecardiovascularmagneticresonanceassessmentofpressurerecoverydistanceafteraorticvalvestenosis |