Literature DB >> 32601326

Validation of four-dimensional flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance for aortic stenosis assessment.

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


  1 in total

1.  Beyond Bernoulli: Improving the Accuracy and Precision of Noninvasive Estimation of Peak Pressure Drops.

Authors:  Fabrizio Donati; Saul Myerson; Malenka M Bissell; Nicolas P Smith; Stefan Neubauer; Mark J Monaghan; David A Nordsletten; Pablo Lamata
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 7.792

  1 in total
  14 in total

1.  Validation of aortic valve pressure gradient quantification using semi-automated 4D flow CMR pipeline.

Authors:  Ciaran Grafton-Clarke; Paul Njoku; Jean-Paul Aben; Leon Ledoux; Liang Zhong; Jos Westenberg; Andrew Swift; Gareth Archer; James Wild; Rod Hose; Marcus Flather; Vassilios S Vassiliou; Pankaj Garg
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2022-04-29

2.  Left ventricular blood flow kinetic energy is associated with the six-minute walk test and left ventricular remodelling post valvular intervention in aortic stenosis.

Authors:  Alaa Elhawaz; Gareth T Archer; Hamza Zafar; Benjamin Fidock; Natasha Barker; Rachel Jones; Alexander Rothman; Rod Hose; Abdallah Al-Mohammad; Norman Briffa; Steven Hunter; Peter Braidley; Ian R Hall; Ever Grech; Rob J van der Geest; Julian P Gunn; Andrew J Swift; James M Wild; Pankaj Garg
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2021-04

Review 3.  Multimodality Imaging for Discordant Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis: Assessing the Valve and the Myocardium.

Authors:  Ezequiel Guzzetti; Mohamed-Salah Annabi; Philippe Pibarot; Marie-Annick Clavel
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2020-12-03

4.  Peak flow measurements in patients with severe aortic stenosis: a prospective comparative study between cardiovascular magnetic resonance 2D and 4D flow and transthoracic echocardiography.

Authors:  Satu M Vaara; Juha I Peltonen; Jyri Lommi; Satu Suihko; Helena Rajala; Minna Kylmälä; Reetta Hälvä; Touko T Kaasalainen; Miia Holmström; Sari Kivistö; Suvi Syväranta
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson       Date:  2021-11-15       Impact factor: 5.364

5.  Accuracy of stroke volume measurement with phase-contrast cardiovascular magnetic resonance in patients with aortic stenosis.

Authors:  Ezequiel Guzzetti; Hugo-Pierre Racine; Lionel Tastet; Mylène Shen; Eric Larose; Marie-Annick Clavel; Philippe Pibarot; Jonathan Beaudoin
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson       Date:  2021-11-04       Impact factor: 5.364

Review 6.  Valvular Cardiomyopathy: The Value of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Authors:  Vasiliki Tsampasian; Sandeep S Hothi; Thuwarahan Ravindrarajah; Andrew J Swift; Pankaj Garg; Vassilios S Vassiliou
Journal:  Cardiol Res Pract       Date:  2022-02-22       Impact factor: 1.866

Review 7.  The Role of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance in Aortic Stenosis and Regurgitation.

Authors:  Marco Guglielmo; Chiara Rovera; Mark G Rabbat; Gianluca Pontone
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Dev Dis       Date:  2022-04-04

8.  Gradient and pressure recovery of a self-expandable transcatheter aortic valve depends on ascending aorta size: In vitro study.

Authors:  Milad Samaee; Hoda Hatoum; Michael Biersmith; Breandan Yeats; Shelley C Gooden; Vinod H Thourani; Rebecca T Hahn; Scott Lilly; Ajit Yoganathan; Lakshmi Prasad Dasi
Journal:  JTCVS Open       Date:  2022-01-22

9.  Feasibility and validation of trans-valvular flow derived by four-dimensional flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging in patients with atrial fibrillation.

Authors:  Mark T Mills; Ciaran Grafton-Clarke; Gareth Williams; Rebecca C Gosling; Abdulaziz Al Baraikan; Andreas L Kyriacou; Paul D Morris; Julian P Gunn; Peter P Swoboda; Eylem Levelt; Vasiliki Tsampasian; Rob J van der Geest; Andrew J Swift; John P Greenwood; Sven Plein; Vass Vassiliou; Pankaj Garg
Journal:  Wellcome Open Res       Date:  2021-05-18

Review 10.  Advanced cardiovascular multimodal imaging and aortic stenosis.

Authors:  Carmen Cionca; Alexandru Zlibut; Lucia Agoston-Coldea; Teodora Mocan
Journal:  Heart Fail Rev       Date:  2021-07-19       Impact factor: 4.214

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.