Background: There are several methods to quantify mitral regurgitation (MR) by cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). The interoperability of these methods and their reproducibility remains... Show moreBackground: There are several methods to quantify mitral regurgitation (MR) by cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). The interoperability of these methods and their reproducibility remains undetermined.Objective: To determine the agreement and reproducibility of different MR quantification methods by CMR across all aetiologies.Methods: Thirty-five patients with MR were recruited (primary MR = 12, secondary MR = 10 and MVR = 13). Patients underwent CMR, including cines and four-dimensional flow (4D flow). Four methods were evaluated: MRStandard (left ventricular stroke volume-aortic forward flow by phase contrast), MRLVRV (left ventricular stroke volume - right ventricular stroke volume), MRJet (direct jet quantification by 4D flow) and MRMVAV (mitral forward flow by 4D flow - aortic forward flow by 4D flow). For all cases and MR types, 520 MR volumes were recorded by these 4 methods for intra-/inter-observer tests.Results: In primary MR, MRMVAV and MRLVRV were comparable to MRStandard (P > 0.05). MRJet resulted in significantly higher MR volumes when compared to MRStandard (P < 0.05) In secondary MR and MVR cases, all methods were comparable. In intra-observer tests, MRMVAV demonstrated least bias with best limits of agreement (bias = -0.1 ml,-8 ml to 7.8 ml, P = 0.9) and best concordance correlation coefficient (CCC = 0.96, P < 0.01). In inter-observer tests, for primary MR and MVR, least bias and highest CCC were observed for MRMVAV. For secondary MR, bias was lowest for MRJet (-0.1 ml, P=NS).Conclusion: CMR methods of MR quantification demonstrate agreement in secondary MR and MVR. In primary MR, this was not observed. Across all types of MR, MRMVAV quantification demonstrated the highest reproducibility and consistency. (C) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. Show less
Background: Left ventricular (LV) kinetic energy (KE) assessment by four-dimensional flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance (4D flow CMR) may offer incremental value over routine assessment in... Show moreBackground: Left ventricular (LV) kinetic energy (KE) assessment by four-dimensional flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance (4D flow CMR) may offer incremental value over routine assessment in aortic stenosis (AS). The main objective of this study is to investigate the LV KE in patients with AS before and after the valve intervention. In addition, this study aimed to investigate if LV KE offers incremental value for its association to the six-minute walk test (6MWT) or LV remodelling post-intervention.Methods: We recruited 18 patients with severe AS. All patients underwent transthoracic echocardiography for mean pressure gradient (mPG), CMR including 4D flow and 6MWT. Patients were invited for post-valve intervention follow-up CMR at 3 months and twelve patients returned for follow-up CMR. KE assessment of LV blood flow and the components (direct, delayed, retained and residual) were carried out for all cases. LV KE parameters were normalised to LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV).Results: For LV blood flow KE assessment, the metrics including time delay (TD) for peak E-wave from base to mid-ventricle (14 +/- 48 vs. 2.5 +/- 9.75 ms, P=0.04), direct (4.91 +/- 5.07 vs. 1.86 +/- 1.72 mu J, P=0.01) and delayed (2.46 +/- 3.13 vs. 1.38 +/- 1.15 mu J, P=0.03) components of LV blood flow demonstrated a significant change between preand post-valve intervention. Only LV KEi(EDV) (r=-0.53, P<0.01), diastolic KEi(EDV) (r=-0.53, P<0.01) and E-wave KEi(EDV) (r=-0.38, P=0.04) demonstrated association to the 6MWT. However, Pre-operative LV KEi(EDV) (r=0.67, P=0.02) demonstrated association to LV remodelling post valve intervention.Conclusions: LV blood flow KE is associated with 6MWT and LV remodelling in patients with AS. LV KE assessment provides incremental value over routine LV function and pressure gradient (PG) assessment in AS. Show less
Archer, G.T.; Elhawaz, A.; Barker, N.; Fidock, B.; Rothman, A.; Geest, R.J. van der; ... ; Garg, P. 2020
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... Show moreThe 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 +/- 26mmHG vs 50 +/- 34mmHg, P=0.67). However, Doppler yielded significantly higher pressure gradient compared to invasive assessment (61 +/- 32mmHG vs 50 +/- 34mmHg, 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. Show less
