Literature DB >> 35190940

Two wrongs sometimes do make a right: errors in aortic valve stenosis assessment by same-day Doppler echocardiography and 4D flow MRI.

Hyungkyu Huh1, Jeesoo Lee2, Menhel Kinno3, Michael Markl2,4, James D Thomas5, Alex J Barker6,7.   

Abstract

This study aims to systematically verify if the simplified geometry and flow profile of the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) assumed in 2D echocardiography is appropriate while examining the utility of 4D flow MRI to assess valvular disease. This prospective study obtained same-day Doppler echocardiography and 4D flow MRI in 37 healthy volunteers (age: 51.9 ± 18.2, 20 females) and 7 aortic stenosis (AS) patients (age: 64.2 ± 9.6, 1 female). Two critical assumptions made in echocardiography for aortic valve area assessment were examined, i.e. the assumption of (1) a circular LVOT shape and (2) a flat velocity profile through the LVOT. 3D velocity and shape information obtained with 4D flow MRI was used as comparison. It was found that the LVOT area was lower (by 26.5% and 24.5%) and the velocity time integral (VTI) was higher (by 28.5% and 30.2%) with echo in the healthy and AS group, respectively. These competing errors largely cancelled out when examining individual and cohort averaged LVOT stroke volume. The LVOT area, VTI and stroke volume measured by echo and 4D flow MRI were 3.6 ± 0.7 vs. 4.9 ± 1.0 cm2 (p < 0.001), 21.2 ± 3.0 vs 15.2 ± 2.8 cm (p < 0.001), and 75.6 ± 15.6 vs 72.8 ± 14.1 ml (p = 0.3376), respectively. In the ensemble average of LVOT area and VTI, under- and over-estimation seem to compensate each other to result in a 'realistic' stroke volume. However, it is important to understand that this compensation may fail. 4D flow MRI provides a unique insight into this phenomenon.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.

Entities:  

Keywords:  2D Doppler echocardiography; 4D flow MRI; Aortic valve disease; Hemodynamics; Left ventricular outflow tract

Year:  2022        PMID: 35190940      PMCID: PMC9392814          DOI: 10.1007/s10554-022-02553-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging        ISSN: 1569-5794            Impact factor:   2.316


  30 in total

1.  Multimodality imaging in transcatheter aortic valve implantation and post-procedural aortic regurgitation: comparison among cardiovascular magnetic resonance, cardiac computed tomography, and echocardiography.

Authors:  Andrew Jabbour; Tevfik F Ismail; Neil Moat; Ankur Gulati; Isabelle Roussin; Francisco Alpendurada; Bradley Park; Francois Okoroafor; Anita Asgar; Sarah Barker; Simon Davies; Sanjay K Prasad; Michael Rubens; Raad H Mohiaddin
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2011-11-15       Impact factor: 24.094

2.  Simulation of phase contrast MRI of turbulent flow.

Authors:  Sven Petersson; Petter Dyverfeldt; Roland Gårdhagen; Matts Karlsson; Tino Ebbers
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 4.668

3.  Quantitative assessment of left ventricular size and function: side-by-side comparison of real-time three-dimensional echocardiography and computed tomography with magnetic resonance reference.

Authors:  Lissa Sugeng; Victor Mor-Avi; Lynn Weinert; Johannes Niel; Christian Ebner; Regina Steringer-Mascherbauer; Frank Schmidt; Christian Galuschky; Georg Schummers; Roberto M Lang; Hans-Joachim Nesser
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2006-08-07       Impact factor: 29.690

4.  Underestimation of aortic valve area in calcified aortic valve disease: effects of left ventricular outflow tract ellipticity.

Authors:  Hiroto Utsunomiya; Hideya Yamamoto; Jun Horiguchi; Eiji Kunita; Takenori Okada; Ryo Yamazato; Takayuki Hidaka; Yasuki Kihara
Journal:  Int J Cardiol       Date:  2011-01-13       Impact factor: 4.164

Review 5.  The Role of Imaging of Flow Patterns by 4D Flow MRI in Aortic Stenosis.

Authors:  Julio Garcia; Alex J Barker; Michael Markl
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2019-02

6.  Evaluation of aortic stenosis severity using 4D flow jet shear layer detection for the measurement of valve effective orifice area.

Authors:  Julio Garcia; Michael Markl; Susanne Schnell; Bradley Allen; Pegah Entezari; Riti Mahadevia; S Chris Malaisrie; Philippe Pibarot; James Carr; Alex J Barker
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2014-04-24       Impact factor: 2.546

7.  Comparison of short and long axis methods in cardiac MR imaging and echocardiography for left ventricular function.

Authors:  Tuncay Hazirolan; Bariş Taşbaş; Merve Gülbiz Dağoğlu; Murat Canyiğit; Gülcan Abali; Kudret Aytemir; Ali Oto; Ferhun Balkanci
Journal:  Diagn Interv Radiol       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 2.630

8.  Recommendations on the Echocardiographic Assessment of Aortic Valve Stenosis: A Focused Update from the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging and the American Society of Echocardiography.

Authors:  Helmut Baumgartner; Judy Hung; Javier Bermejo; John B Chambers; Thor Edvardsen; Steven Goldstein; Patrizio Lancellotti; Melissa LeFevre; Fletcher Miller; Catherine M Otto
Journal:  J Am Soc Echocardiogr       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 5.251

9.  Correlation of aortic valve area obtained by the velocity-encoded phase contrast continuity method to direct planimetry using cardiovascular magnetic resonance.

Authors:  Kaoru Tanaka; Amgad N Makaryus; Steven D Wolff
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 5.364

10.  Quantitative Assessment of Left Ventricular Function and Myocardial Mass: A Comparison of Coronary CT Angiography with Cardiac MRI and Echocardiography.

Authors:  Bedia Kara; Alaaddin Nayman; Ibrahim Guler; Enes Elvin Gul; Mustafa Koplay; Yahya Paksoy
Journal:  Pol J Radiol       Date:  2016-03-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.