Clinical use of 4D flow MRI for quantification of aortic regurgitation

ObjectiveThe main objective of the present study was to compare the use of four-dimensional (4D) flow MRI with the habitual sequence (two-dimensional phase-contrast (2DPC) MRI) for the assessment of aortic regurgitation (AR) in the clinical routine.MethodsThis was a retrospective, observational coho...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Ana Alvarez, Vicente Martinez, Gonzalo Pizarro, Manuel Recio, Jose Ángel Cabrera
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMJ Publishing Group 2020-06-01
Series:Open Heart
Online Access:https://openheart.bmj.com/content/7/1/e001158.full
id doaj-49fc6c85ce31409bb4a626311721208e
record_format Article
spelling doaj-49fc6c85ce31409bb4a626311721208e2020-12-14T14:46:09ZengBMJ Publishing GroupOpen Heart2053-36242020-06-017110.1136/openhrt-2019-001158Clinical use of 4D flow MRI for quantification of aortic regurgitationAna Alvarez0Vicente Martinez1Gonzalo Pizarro2Manuel Recio3Jose Ángel Cabrera4Imaging Department, Hospital Universitario Quironsalud Madrid, Madrid, SpainImaging Department, Hospital Universitario Quironsalud Madrid, Madrid, SpainUniversidad Europea de Madrid, Madrid, SpainImaging Department, Hospital Universitario Quironsalud Madrid, Madrid, SpainDepartment of Cardiology, Hospital Universitario Quironsalud Madrid, Madrid, Madrid, SpainObjectiveThe main objective of the present study was to compare the use of four-dimensional (4D) flow MRI with the habitual sequence (two-dimensional phase-contrast (2DPC) MRI) for the assessment of aortic regurgitation (AR) in the clinical routine.MethodsThis was a retrospective, observational cohort study of patients with varying grades of AR. For the purposes of the present study, we selected all the cases with a regurgitant fraction (RF)>5% as determined by 2DPC MRI (n=34). In all cases, both sequences (2DPC and 4D flow MRI) were acquired in a single session to ensure comparability. We compared the results of the two techniques by evaluating forward flow, regurgitant flow and regurgitation fraction. Then, the patients were divided into subgroups to determine if these factors had any influence on the measurements: aortic diameter (≤ vs >38 mm), valve anatomy (tricuspid vs bicuspid/quadricuspid), stenosis (gradient ≥15 vs <15) and region of interest location (aortic valve vs sinotubular junction).ResultsNo statistically significant differences were observed between the two techniques with Pearson’s correlation coefficients (r) of forward flow (r=0.826/p value<0001), regurgitant flow (r=0.866/p value<0001) and RF (r=0.761/p value<0001).ConclusionsThe findings of this study confirm the value of 4D flow MRI for grading AR in clinical practice with an excellent correlation with the standard technique (2DPC MRI).https://openheart.bmj.com/content/7/1/e001158.full
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Ana Alvarez
Vicente Martinez
Gonzalo Pizarro
Manuel Recio
Jose Ángel Cabrera
spellingShingle Ana Alvarez
Vicente Martinez
Gonzalo Pizarro
Manuel Recio
Jose Ángel Cabrera
Clinical use of 4D flow MRI for quantification of aortic regurgitation
Open Heart
author_facet Ana Alvarez
Vicente Martinez
Gonzalo Pizarro
Manuel Recio
Jose Ángel Cabrera
author_sort Ana Alvarez
title Clinical use of 4D flow MRI for quantification of aortic regurgitation
title_short Clinical use of 4D flow MRI for quantification of aortic regurgitation
title_full Clinical use of 4D flow MRI for quantification of aortic regurgitation
title_fullStr Clinical use of 4D flow MRI for quantification of aortic regurgitation
title_full_unstemmed Clinical use of 4D flow MRI for quantification of aortic regurgitation
title_sort clinical use of 4d flow mri for quantification of aortic regurgitation
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
series Open Heart
issn 2053-3624
publishDate 2020-06-01
description ObjectiveThe main objective of the present study was to compare the use of four-dimensional (4D) flow MRI with the habitual sequence (two-dimensional phase-contrast (2DPC) MRI) for the assessment of aortic regurgitation (AR) in the clinical routine.MethodsThis was a retrospective, observational cohort study of patients with varying grades of AR. For the purposes of the present study, we selected all the cases with a regurgitant fraction (RF)>5% as determined by 2DPC MRI (n=34). In all cases, both sequences (2DPC and 4D flow MRI) were acquired in a single session to ensure comparability. We compared the results of the two techniques by evaluating forward flow, regurgitant flow and regurgitation fraction. Then, the patients were divided into subgroups to determine if these factors had any influence on the measurements: aortic diameter (≤ vs >38 mm), valve anatomy (tricuspid vs bicuspid/quadricuspid), stenosis (gradient ≥15 vs <15) and region of interest location (aortic valve vs sinotubular junction).ResultsNo statistically significant differences were observed between the two techniques with Pearson’s correlation coefficients (r) of forward flow (r=0.826/p value<0001), regurgitant flow (r=0.866/p value<0001) and RF (r=0.761/p value<0001).ConclusionsThe findings of this study confirm the value of 4D flow MRI for grading AR in clinical practice with an excellent correlation with the standard technique (2DPC MRI).
url https://openheart.bmj.com/content/7/1/e001158.full
work_keys_str_mv AT anaalvarez clinicaluseof4dflowmriforquantificationofaorticregurgitation
AT vicentemartinez clinicaluseof4dflowmriforquantificationofaorticregurgitation
AT gonzalopizarro clinicaluseof4dflowmriforquantificationofaorticregurgitation
AT manuelrecio clinicaluseof4dflowmriforquantificationofaorticregurgitation
AT joseangelcabrera clinicaluseof4dflowmriforquantificationofaorticregurgitation
_version_ 1724383568498524160