» Articles » PMID: 34775954

Peak Flow Measurements in Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis: a Prospective Comparative Study Between Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 2D and 4D Flow and Transthoracic Echocardiography

Overview
Publisher Elsevier
Date 2021 Nov 15
PMID 34775954
Citations 7
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Aortic valve stenosis (AS) is the most prevalent valvular disease in the developed countries. Four-dimensional (4D) flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is an emerging imaging technique, which has been suggested to improve the evaluation of AS severity compared to two-dimensional (2D) flow and transthoracic echocardiography (TTE). We investigated the reliability of CMR 2D flow and 4D flow techniques in measuring aortic transvalvular peak systolic flow in patients with severe AS.

Methods: We prospectively recruited 90 patients referred for aortic valve replacement due to severe AS (73.3 ± 11.3 years, aortic valve area 0.7 ± 0.1 cm, and 54/36 tricuspid/bicuspid), and 10 non-valvular disease controls. All the patients underwent echocardiography and 2D flow and 4D flow CMR. Peak flow velocity measurements were compared using Wilcoxon signed rank sum test and Bland-Altman analysis.

Results: 4D flow underestimated peak flow velocity in the AS group when compared with TTE (bias - 1.1 m/s, limits of agreement ± 1.4 m/s) and 2D flow (bias - 1.2 m/s, limits of agreement ± 1.6 m/s). The differences between values obtained by TTE (median 4.3 m/s, range 2.7-6.1 m/s) and 2D flow (median 4.5 m/s, range 2.9-6.5 m/s) compared to 4D flow (median 3.1 m/s, range 1.7-5.1 m/s) were significant (p < 0.001). The difference between 2D flow and TTE were insignificant (bias 0.07 m/s, limits of agreement ± 1.5 m/s). In non-valvular disease controls, peak flow velocity was measured higher by 4D flow than 2D flow (1.4 m/s, 1.1-1.7 m/s and 1.3 m/s, 1.1-1.5 m/s, respectively; bias 0.2 m/s, limits of agreement ± 0.16 m/s).

Conclusions: CMR 4D flow significantly underestimates systolic peak flow velocity in patients with severe AS. 2D flow, in turn, estimated the AS velocity accurately, with measured peak flow velocities comparable to TTE.

Citing Articles

Evaluating the Diagnostic Potential of Four-Dimensional Flow Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Aortic Stenosis Diagnosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Chandrasekar S, Kolli M, George A, Kodali D, Nagaraja Shivamoggi H, Girivasan S Cureus. 2024; 16(11):e73339.

PMID: 39524162 PMC: 11550489. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.73339.


Moderate Aortic Stenosis-Advanced Imaging, Risk Assessment, and Treatment Strategies.

Adrichem R, van den Dorpel M, Hirsch A, Geleijnse M, Budde R, Van Mieghem N Struct Heart. 2024; 8(5):100279.

PMID: 39290682 PMC: 11403096. DOI: 10.1016/j.shj.2023.100279.


Is there a role for cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of biological aortic valves?.

Vermes E, Iacuzio L, Marechaux S, Levy F, Loardi C, Tribouilloy C Front Cardiovasc Med. 2023; 10:1250576.

PMID: 38124892 PMC: 10730731. DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2023.1250576.


4D Flow 2D Phase Contrast MRI in Populations With Bi- and Tricuspid Aortic Valves.

Hautanen S, Kiljander T, Korpela T, Saari P, Kokkonen J, Mustonen P In Vivo. 2023; 37(1):88-98.

PMID: 36593031 PMC: 9843764. DOI: 10.21873/invivo.13057.


Kat-ARC accelerated 4D flow CMR: clinical validation for transvalvular flow and peak velocity assessment.

Assadi H, Uthayachandran B, Li R, Wardley J, Nyi T, Grafton-Clarke C Eur Radiol Exp. 2022; 6(1):46.

PMID: 36131185 PMC: 9492816. DOI: 10.1186/s41747-022-00299-5.


References
1.
Lindman B, Dweck M, Lancellotti P, Genereux P, Pierard L, OGara P . Management of Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis: Evolving Concepts in Timing of Valve Replacement. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019; 13(2 Pt 1):481-493. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2019.01.036. View

2.
Adriaans B, Westenberg J, van Cauteren Y, Gerretsen S, Elbaz M, Bekkers S . Clinical assessment of aortic valve stenosis: Comparison between 4D flow MRI and transthoracic echocardiography. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2019; 51(2):472-480. PMC: 7004028. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.26847. View

3.
Chaturvedi A, Hamilton-Craig C, Cawley P, Mitsumori L, Otto C, Maki J . Quantitating aortic regurgitation by cardiovascular magnetic resonance: significant variations due to slice location and breath holding. Eur Radiol. 2015; 26(9):3180-9. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-015-4120-6. View

4.
Nishimura R, Otto C, Bonow R, Carabello B, Erwin 3rd J, Guyton R . 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014; 63(22):e57-185. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.02.536. View

5.
Kramer C, Barkhausen J, Bucciarelli-Ducci C, Flamm S, Kim R, Nagel E . Standardized cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) protocols: 2020 update. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2020; 22(1):17. PMC: 7038611. DOI: 10.1186/s12968-020-00607-1. View