| Literature DB >> 32601326 |
Gareth T Archer1,2, Alaa Elhawaz1, Natasha Barker1, Benjamin Fidock1, Alexander Rothman1, R J van der Geest3, Rod Hose1,4, Norman Briffa1,2, Ian R Hall2, Ever Grech2, Malenka Bissell5, Abdallah Al-Mohammad2, Thomas A Treibel6, Andrew J Swift1,4, James M Wild1,4, Pankaj Garg7,8.
Abstract
The management of patients with aortic stenosis (AS) crucially depends on accurate diagnosis. The main aim of this study were to validate the four-dimensional flow (4D flow) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) methods for AS assessment. Eighteen patients with clinically severe AS were recruited. All patients had pre-valve intervention 6MWT, echocardiography and CMR with 4D flow. Of these, ten patients had a surgical valve replacement, and eight patients had successful transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). TAVI patients had invasive pressure gradient assessments. A repeat assessment was performed at 3-4 months to assess the remodelling response. The peak pressure gradient by 4D flow was comparable to an invasive pressure gradient (54 ± 26 mmHG vs 50 ± 34 mmHg, P = 0.67). However, Doppler yielded significantly higher pressure gradient compared to invasive assessment (61 ± 32 mmHG vs 50 ± 34 mmHg, P = 0.0002). 6MWT was associated with 4D flow CMR derived pressure gradient (r = -0.45, P = 0.01) and EOA (r = 0.54, P < 0.01) but only with Doppler EOA (r = 0.45, P = 0.01). Left ventricular mass regression was better associated with 4D flow derived pressure gradient change (r = 0.64, P = 0.04). 4D flow CMR offers an alternative method for non-invasive assessment of AS. In addition, 4D flow derived valve metrics have a superior association to prognostically relevant 6MWT and LV mass regression than echocardiography.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32601326 PMCID: PMC7324609 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-66659-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379