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...
Main Authors: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |