| Literature DB >> 29332606 |
Mieke M P Driessen1,2, Marjolijn A Schings1,3, Gertjan Tj Sieswerda1, Pieter A Doevendans1, Erik H Hulzebos4, Marco C Post5, Repke J Snijder6, Jos J M Westenberg7, Arie P J van Dijk8, Folkert J Meijboom1, Tim Leiner9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tricuspid valve (TV) regurgitation (TR) is a common complication of pulmonary hypertension and right-sided congenital heart disease, associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Estimation of TR severity by echocardiography and conventional cardiovasvular magnetic resonance (CMR) is not well validated and has high variability. 4D velocity-encoded (4D-flow) CMR was used to measure tricuspid flow in patients with complex right ventricular (RV) geometry and varying degrees of TR. The aims of the present study were: 1) to assess accuracy of 4D-flow CMR across the TV by comparing 4D-flow CMR derived TV effective flow to 2D-flow derived effective flow across the pulmonary valve (PV); 2) to assess TV 4D-flow CMR reproducibility, and 3) to compare TR grade by 4D-flow CMR to TR grade by echocardiography.Entities:
Keywords: 4D-flow MRI; Congenital heart disease; Echocardiography; Pulmonary hypertension; Tricuspid regurgitation
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29332606 PMCID: PMC5767973 DOI: 10.1186/s12968-017-0426-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson ISSN: 1097-6647 Impact factor: 5.364
Fig. 1Example of 4D flow. Example of 4D-flow CMR analysis. In a-d the annular plane is reconstructed perpendicular to the flow direction, in figure e + f the flow contours are drawn in the reconstructed through-plane flow slice
Demographic data
| Controls ( | CHD | PH | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PS ( | SystRV ( | ||||
| Age (yrs) | 41.2 ± 10.5 | 30.6 ± 12.6# | 36.6 ± 8.4 | 54.4 ± 15.6** | <0.001 |
| BSA (m2) | 1.93 ± 0.21 | 1.90 ± 0.15 | 1.94 ± 0.15 | 1.92 ± 0.26 | 0.97 |
| RVSP (mmHg) | – | 50 [40-111] | 108 [89-127] | 54 [23-100] | 0.025 |
| VO2/kg (ml/min) | – | 29.7 ± 6.6 | 27.1 ± 6.6 | 17.0 ± 4.1 | <0.001 |
| %PredVO2/kg | – | 83.8 ± 17.2 | 83.0 ± 18.5 | 62.9 ± 12.9 | <0.001 |
| QRS (msec) | 93.1 ± 13.7 | 133.1 ± 34.4** | 107.2 ± 16.2 | 97.5 ± 24.2 | <0.001 |
| Heart rate | 61 ± 9 | 69 ± 9 | 59 ± 8 | 69 ± 12 | 0.013 |
| RVEDV (ml/m2) | 97 [60-134] | 95 [71-170] | 109 [73-222] | 110 [52-343] | 0.48 |
| RVESV (ml/m2) | 46 [20-59] | 49 [26-122] | 58 [26-170] * | 60 [16-271]* | 0.009 |
| RVEF (%) | 54.8 ± 4.6 | 49.0 ± 9.2 | 45.5 ± 10.7# | 41.1 ± 11.4** | 0.017 |
General demographic data for all groups. To test for differences between the different groups (last column) ANOVA with posthoc Dunnets (controls as reference) was used for normally distributed data and Kruskal Wallis analysis of variance with Mann Whitney U tests for non-normally distributed data. #p < 0.05, *p < 0.01, **p < 0.001. Abbreviations: BSA body surface area, RVSP right ventricular systolic pressure, VO/kg peak oxygen uptake per kg, %PredVO/kgg % of predicted peak oxygen uptake, RV right ventricular, EDV end-diastolic volume ESV end-systolic volume, EF ejection fraction
CMR measurements
| Controls ( | CHD | PH | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PS ( | Syst RV ( | ||||
| 4D-TV FW (ml) | 111.5 ± 27.3 | 91.2 ± 15.2# | 95.4 ± 19.8 | 87.2 ± 21.7** | 0.23 |
| 4D-TV BW (ml) | 8.3 [2.0-24.1] | 8.4 [5.1-25.9] | 10.7 [3.7-34.0] | 7.3 [2.2-57.7] | 0.61 |
| 4D-SV TV (ml/m2) | 52.4 ± 9.4 | 42.5 ± 5.7** | 41.7 ± 8.0** | 38.7 ± 9.6** | 0.13 |
| 4D-TV reg (%) | 7.9 [1.9-17.6] | 9.3[5.4-25.0] | 12.5 [5.1-40.1] | 9.2 [3.2-49.6] | 0.307 |
| 2D-SV PA (ml/m2) | 49.5 ± 7.7 | 42.1 ± 4.8* | 42.8 ± 7.5# | 38.0 ± 9.6** | <0.001 |
| TVann 4CH (mm) | 37.4 ± 4.1 | 38.8 ± 5.8 | 42.3 ± 5.0* | 39.6 ± 4.4 | 0.032 |
| TVann 2CH (mm) | 37.5 ± 4.3 | 37.7 ± 5.3 | 38.5 ± 4.5 | 38.5 ± 3.6 | 0.84 |
Results of volumetric and 4D flow CMR
To test for differences between the different groups (last column) ANOVA with posthoc Dunnets (controls as reference) was used for normally distributed data and Kruskal Wallis analysis of variance with Mann Whitney U tests (controls as reference) for non-normally distributed data. #p < 0.05, *p < 0.01 and **p < 0.001. Abbreviations: 4D-TV FW 4D tricuspid valve forward flow, 4D-TV BW 4D tricuspid valve backward flow, 4D-SV TV 4D tricuspid valve effective flow, 4D-TV reg 4D flow tricuspid valve regurgitation, 2D-SV PA 2D pulmonary valve effective flow, TVann 4CH tricuspid annulus diameter in 4-chamber view, TVann 2CH tricuspid valve annulus diameter in 2-chamber view
Fig. 2Accuracy of 4D-flow CMR. a) depicts the correlation between effective flow across the tricuspid valve using 4D-flow CMR (4D-flow TV) and effective flow across the pulmonary valve using 2D-flow CMR (2D-flow PV). b) depicts a Bland-Altman analysis with the difference between both effective flow measurements on the x-axis and the average of both measurements on the y-axis
Fig. 3Tricuspid valve 2D-flow versus 4D-flow. Bland-Altman plots of tricuspid valve effective flow using a static annular plane (similar to 2D flow) versus effective flow across the pulmonary valve (a) and versus 4D flow (b). c) depicts tricuspid regurgitant fraction using a static annular plane (2D flow on y-axis) versus 4D flow (x-axis)
Intra- and interobserver agreement
| Mean Δ | ICC | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intraobserver | ||||
| Forward flow (ml) | 1.08 ± 4.58 | 0.911 | 0.963 | <0.001 |
| Stroke volume (ml) | −1.51 ± 5.80 | 0.329 | 0.981 | <0.001 |
| Regurgitance (%) | −1.07 ± 4.58 | 0.378 | 0.910 | <0.001 |
| Interobserver | ||||
| Forward flow (ml) | 1.44 ± 9.26 | 0.370 | 0.911 | <0.001 |
| Stroke volume (ml) | 2.12 ± 8.86 | 0.556 | 0.935 | <0.001 |
| Regurgitance (%) | −1.1 ± 3.5 | 0.242 | 0.968 | <0.001 |
Mean difference (Δ) between repeated measures and significance were tested with a paired Student T-test and agreement using intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC)
1p-value using paired Student's T test
2p-value for intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC)
Fig. 4Reproducibility of 4D flow CMR measurements. a&b Bland-Altman analysis of intra-observer repeated measurements of effective flow (a) and regurgitation (b). c&d Bland-Altman analysis of inter-observer repeated measurements of effective flow (c) and regurgitation (d)
Echocardiography vs 4D-flow CMR
Contingency table depicting the results for TR grading by echocardiography versus 4D-flow CMR (clinically most relevant group, with either moderate or severe TR, highlighted). The linear weighted kappa for agreement between both methods was 0.52 (95%-confidence interval 0.37-0.67)