| Literature DB >> 28088917 |
Johanna Richau1, Matthias A Dieringer2, Julius Traber1,3, Florian von Knobelsdorff-Brenkenhoff1,3,4, Andreas Greiser2, Carsten Schwenke5, Jeanette Schulz-Menger6,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance is often used to evaluate patients after heart valve replacement. This study systematically analyses the influence of heart valve prostheses on phase contrast measurements in a phantom trial.Entities:
Keywords: Artefacts; Cardiovascular magnetic resonance; Flow phantom; Phase contrast; Valve prosthesis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28088917 PMCID: PMC5238524 DOI: 10.1186/s12968-016-0319-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson ISSN: 1097-6647 Impact factor: 5.364
Fig. 1Setting of the MR flow phantom for in-vitro assessment of heart valve prostheses. a. Scheme of the experimental setting showing the closed circuit flow phantom as placed in the scanner. b. Scheme of the acrylic pipe and positioning of the measurement slices (S1-S12). c. Coronal magnitude image of the acrylic pipe, proximal and distal parts of the tube system and positioning of the measurement slices. The arrow demonstrates the direction of flow
Fig. 2Objects investigated in flow phantom. a. Metal-free aortic valve shaped inlay, containing solely plastics. b. Biological aortic valve prosthesis, containing metal-stent. c. Biological aortic valve prosthesis, containing metal-stent. d. Mechanical aortic valve prosthesis, containing carbon
Detailed schedule of material components
| Investigated objects | Material components, percentage of metal elements, orifice area |
|---|---|
| Synthetic aortic valve | Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene copolymer (ABS plus), 3D printed |
| Orifice area: 2.0 cm2 | |
| Prosthesis I | Stent: polyoxymethylene, covered with polyester cloth |
| Annulus: tungsten, silicon | |
| Leaflet: glutaraldehyde fixated bovine pericardium | |
| Orifice area: 2.0 cm2 | |
| Prosthesis II | Stent: corrosion-resistant Elgiloy (cobalt 40%, chromium 20%, nickel 15%, molybdenum 7%, manganese 2%, carbon <0.10%, beryllium <0.10%, iron 5.8%) |
| Leaflet: bovine pericadium | |
| Orifice area: 1.8 cm2 | |
| Prosthesis III | Orifice: pyrolythic carbon |
| Leaflets: pyrolytic carbon graphite coated and tungsten (20%) impregnated | |
| Annulus: pyrolytic carbon, velour polyester, titanium, coated with Hemashield conduit (double velour polyester collagen impregnated) | |
| Orifice area: 1.55 cm2 |
Fig. 3Results of B0 mapping. a. Coronal images of B0 maps, coloured scale in Hertz. b. Corresponding profile plots showing the quantitative magnetic field distortion from B0 in Hertz. c. Corresponding coronal magnitude images. White dashed line top right: Intraluminal positioning of slice for generating profile plots in MATLAB. d. Description of the magnetic field distortions according to quantitative score
Fig. 4Quantitative aberration from B0 magnetic field in all investigated objects. Deviation in Hertz (Hz) derived from B0 maps and profile plots. Corresponding table showing positive and negative maximum of field aberration in Hz over the whole investigated distance. The numbers within the bars indicate the absolute range of deviation in Hz, as it is used for the quantitative score
Results of Phase contrast-based flow measurement
| Synthetic aortic valve | Prosthesis I | Prosthesis II | Prosthesis III | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| a. Peaks of flow deviation (mean min/max) [ml/s] | 5.28 (−4.92 to 15.48) at S2 to −41.03 (−51.23 to −30.83) at S7 | 55.47 (49.54 to 61.39) at S4 to −32.41 (−38.34 to −26.49) at S8 | 132.20 (126.13 to 138.27) at S2 to - 22.20 (− 28.27 to −16.13) at S5 | 119.13 (112.14 to 126.12) at S3 to - 21.15 (− 28.14 to - 14.16) at S6 |
| b. Absolute flow variation [ml/s] | 46 | 88 | 154 | 140 |
| Percentage according to baseline [%] | 15 | 29 | 53 | 35 |
| c. Significance within 15% range of equivalence [ml/s] | all positions, except S7 +/−47.08 | all positions, except S3 & S4 +/−44.91 | all positions, except S2 & S3 +/−43.94 | all positions, except S3 +/−32.20 |
| Significance within 20% range of equivalence [ml/s] | all positions | all positions, except S4 | all positions, except S2 & S3 | all positions, except S3 |
| d. Convergence to reference flow [mm] | 19.8 (S5) | 13.2 (S4) | 13.2 (S4) |
a. Min. & max. deviation of flow values from reference flow (S1) & their local attribution (peak to peak), 95% confidence interval bracketed
b. Absolute flow variation between the two peaks. Percentage of flow variation according to the absolute flow values at S1
c. Significances for all measured slices within two ranges of equivalence (15% and 20%)
d. Convergence of flow values: mean flow deviation of less than 15% to reference flow, nearly identical flow values beyond that distance
S1-12 = slice 1 to 12, positions of image acquisition in flow phantom
Fig. 5Flow deviation. Deviation of the assessed flow from reference flow over distance. Dark grey: range of equivalence 15%. Light grey: range of equivalence 20%. Black dashed lines: 95% confidence interval
Fig. 6PC flow measurements in-vitro and in-vivo including a synthetic aortic valve model, two biological and one mechanical aortic valve prosthesis. a. Flow measured in-vitro over the distance to the valve. b. Flow measured in-vivo over the distance to the valve. c In-vivo: Long axis view (Cine-imaging, steady state free precession) showing the left ventricular outflow tract and the position of the aortic prosthesis (white arrow). d In-vivo: cine imaging of the aortic valve location (left) and ascending aorta in the area of the suspected restored flow 26.4 mm distal to the aortic valve (right) for each subject (columns)
Fig. 7Background offset error detection. Measurements without flow. Deviation of estimated flow from reference flow over the entire distance in all investigated objects. S2-12 = positions of image acquisition in flow phantom