Literature DB >> 28321684

Left ventricular flow propagation velocity measurement: Is it cast in stone?

Bee Ting Chan1, Hak Koon Yeoh2,3, Yih Miin Liew1, Yang Faridah Abdul Aziz4, Ganiga Srinivasaiah Sridhar5, Christian Hamilton-Craig6,7, David Platts7,8, Einly Lim9.   

Abstract

This study aims to investigate the measurement of left ventricular flow propagation velocity, V p, using phase contrast magnetic resonance imaging and to assess the discrepancies resulting from inflow jet direction and individual left ventricular size. Three V p measuring techniques, namely non-adaptive (NA), adaptive positions (AP) and adaptive vectors (AV) method, were suggested and compared. We performed the comparison on nine healthy volunteers and nine post-infarct patients at four measurement positions, respectively, at one-third, one-half, two-thirds and the conventional 4 cm distances from the mitral valve leaflet into the left ventricle. We found that the V p measurement was affected by both the inflow jet direction and measurement positions. Both NA and AP methods overestimated V p, especially in dilated left ventricles, while the AV method showed the strongest correlation with the isovolumic relaxation myocardial strain rate (r = 0.53, p < 0.05). Using the AV method, notable difference in mean V p was also observed between healthy volunteers and post-infarct patients at positions of: one-half (81 ± 31 vs. 58 ± 25 cm/s), two-thirds (89 ± 32 vs. 45 ± 15 cm/s) and 4 cm (98 ± 23 vs. 47 ± 13 cm/s) distances. The use of AV method and measurement position at one-half distance was found to be the most suitable method for assessing diastolic dysfunction given varying left ventricular sizes and inflow jet directions.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Diastolic dysfunction; Flow propagation velocity; LV relaxation; Magnetic resonance; V p

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28321684     DOI: 10.1007/s11517-017-1639-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput        ISSN: 0140-0118            Impact factor:   2.602


  34 in total

1.  Myocardial strain rate is a superior method for evaluation of left ventricular subendocardial function compared with tissue Doppler imaging.

Authors:  Ikuo Hashimoto; Xiaokui Li; Aarti Hejmadi Bhat; Michael Jones; Arthur D Zetts; David J Sahn
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2003-11-05       Impact factor: 24.094

2.  Preload dependence of new Doppler techniques limits their utility for left ventricular diastolic function assessment in hemodialysis patients.

Authors:  Eric H Y Ie; Wim B Vletter; Folkert J ten Cate; Robert W Nette; Willem Weimar; Jos R T C Roelandt; Robert Zietse
Journal:  J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 10.121

Review 3.  Recommendations for the evaluation of left ventricular diastolic function by echocardiography.

Authors:  Sherif F Nagueh; Christopher P Appleton; Thierry C Gillebert; Paolo N Marino; Jae K Oh; Otto A Smiseth; Alan D Waggoner; Frank A Flachskampf; Patricia A Pellikka; Arturo Evangelista
Journal:  J Am Soc Echocardiogr       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 5.251

4.  Subject-specific computational simulation of left ventricular flow based on magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Q Long; R Merrifield; X Y Xu; P Kilner; D N Firmin; Yang G-Z
Journal:  Proc Inst Mech Eng H       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 1.617

Review 5.  Assessment of left ventricular diastolic function: the power, possibilities, and pitfalls of echocardiographic imaging techniques.

Authors:  Kofo O Ogunyankin
Journal:  Can J Cardiol       Date:  2011 May-Jun       Impact factor: 5.223

6.  Population-based reference values for 3D echocardiographic LV volumes and ejection fraction.

Authors:  Navtej S Chahal; Tiong K Lim; Piyush Jain; John C Chambers; Jaspal S Kooner; Roxy Senior
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2012-12

7.  Comparison of magnetic resonance feature tracking for strain calculation with harmonic phase imaging analysis.

Authors:  Kan N Hor; William M Gottliebson; Christopher Carson; Erin Wash; James Cnota; Robert Fleck; Janaka Wansapura; Piotr Klimeczek; Hussein R Al-Khalidi; Eugene S Chung; D Woodrow Benson; Wojciech Mazur
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2010-02

8.  Intraventricular dispersion and temporal delay of early left ventricular filling after acute myocardial infarction. Assessment by magnetic resonance velocity mapping.

Authors:  Kim Houlind; Anne Pauline Schroeder; Hans Stødkilde-Jørgensen; Peter K Paulsen; Henrik Egeblad; Erik M Pedersen
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 2.546

9.  Quantification of left atrial strain and strain rate using Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance myocardial feature tracking: a feasibility study.

Authors:  Johannes Tammo Kowallick; Shelby Kutty; Frank Edelmann; Amedeo Chiribiri; Adriana Villa; Michael Steinmetz; Jan Martin Sohns; Wieland Staab; Nuno Bettencourt; Christina Unterberg-Buchwald; Gerd Hasenfuß; Joachim Lotz; Andreas Schuster
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson       Date:  2014-08-12       Impact factor: 5.364

Review 10.  A practical approach to the echocardiographic evaluation of diastolic function.

Authors:  Samer J Khouri; George T Maly; David D Suh; Thomas E Walsh
Journal:  J Am Soc Echocardiogr       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 5.251

View more
  1 in total

1.  Understanding the influence of left ventricular assist device inflow cannula alignment and the risk of intraventricular thrombosis.

Authors:  Michael Neidlin; Sam Liao; Zhiyong Li; Benjamin Simpson; David M Kaye; Ulrich Steinseifer; Shaun Gregory
Journal:  Biomed Eng Online       Date:  2021-05-11       Impact factor: 2.819

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.