BackgroundMeasurement of peak velocities is important in the evaluation of heart failure. This study compared the performance of automated 4D flow cardiac MRI (CMR) with traditional transthoracic... Show moreBackgroundMeasurement of peak velocities is important in the evaluation of heart failure. This study compared the performance of automated 4D flow cardiac MRI (CMR) with traditional transthoracic Doppler echocardiography (TTE) for the measurement of mitral inflow peak diastolic velocities.MethodsPatients with Doppler echocardiography and 4D flow cardiac magnetic resonance data were included retrospectively. An established automated technique was used to segment the left ventricular transvalvular flow using short-axis cine stack of images. Peak mitral E-wave and peak mitral A-wave velocities were automatically derived using in-plane velocity maps of transvalvular flow. Additionally, we checked the agreement between peak mitral E-wave velocity derived by 4D flow CMR and Doppler echocardiography in patients with sinus rhythm and atrial fibrillation (AF) separately.ResultsForty-eight patients were included (median age 69 years, IQR 63 to 76; 46% female). Data were split into three groups according to heart rhythm. The median peak E-wave mitral inflow velocity by automated 4D flow CMR was comparable with Doppler echocardiography in all patients (0.90 +/- 0.43 m/s vs 0.94 +/- 0.48 m/s, P = 0.132), sinus rhythm-only group (0.88 +/- 0.35 m/s vs 0.86 +/- 0.38 m/s, P = 0.54) and in AF-only group (1.33 +/- 0.56 m/s vs 1.18 +/- 0.47 m/s, P = 0.06). Peak A-wave mitral inflow velocity results had no significant difference between Doppler TTE and automated 4D flow CMR (0.81 +/- 0.44 m/s vs 0.81 +/- 0.53 m/s, P = 0.09) in all patients and sinus rhythm-only groups. Automated 4D flow CMR showed a significant correlation with TTE for measurement of peak E-wave in all patients group (r = 0.73, P < 0.001) and peak A-wave velocities (r = 0.88, P < 0.001). Moreover, there was a significant correlation between automated 4D flow CMR and TTE for peak-E wave velocity in sinus rhythm-only patients (r = 0.68, P < 0.001) and AF-only patients (r = 0.81, P = 0.014). Excellent intra-and inter-observer variability was demonstrated for both parameters.ConclusionAutomated dynamic peak mitral inflow diastolic velocity tracing using 4D flow CMR is comparable to Doppler echocardiography and has excellent repeatability for clinical use. However, 4D flow CMR can potentially underestimate peak velocity in patients with AF. Show less
Background Right atrial (RA) area predicts mortality in patients with pulmonary hypertension, and is recommended by the European Society of Cardiology/European Respiratory Society pulmonary... Show moreBackground Right atrial (RA) area predicts mortality in patients with pulmonary hypertension, and is recommended by the European Society of Cardiology/European Respiratory Society pulmonary hypertension guidelines. The advent of deep learning may allow more reliable measurement of RA areas to improve clinical assessments. The aim of this study was to automate cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) RA area measurements and evaluate the clinical utility by assessing repeatability, correlation with invasive haemodynamics and prognostic value. Methods A deep learning RA area CMR contouring model was trained in a multicentre cohort of 365 patients with pulmonary hypertension, left ventricular pathology and healthy subjects. Inter-study repeatability (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)) and agreement of contours (DICE similarity coefficient (DSC)) were assessed in a prospective cohort (n = 36). Clinical testing and mortality prediction was performed in n = 400 patients that were not used in the training nor prospective cohort, and the correlation of automatic and manual RA measurements with invasive haemodynamics assessed in n = 212/400. Radiologist quality control (QC) was performed in the ASPIRE registry, n = 3795 patients. The primary QC observer evaluated all the segmentations and recorded them as satisfactory, suboptimal or failure. A second QC observer analysed a random subcohort to assess QC agreement (n = 1018). Results All deep learning RA measurements showed higher interstudy repeatability (ICC 0.91 to 0.95) compared to manual RA measurements (1st observer ICC 0.82 to 0.88, 2nd observer ICC 0.88 to 0.91). DSC showed high agreement comparing automatic artificial intelligence and manual CMR readers. Maximal RA area mean and standard deviation (SD) DSC metric for observer 1 vs observer 2, automatic measurements vs observer 1 and automatic measurements vs observer 2 is 92.4 +/- 3.5 cm(2), 91.2 +/- 4.5 cm(2) and 93.2 +/- 3.2 cm(2), respectively. Minimal RA area mean and SD DSC metric for observer 1 vs observer 2, automatic measurements vs observer 1 and automatic measurements vs observer 2 was 89.8 +/- 3.9 cm(2), 87.0 +/- 5.8 cm(2) and 91.8 +/- 4.8 cm(2). Automatic RA area measurements all showed moderate correlation with invasive parameters (r = 0.45 to 0.66), manual (r = 0.36 to 0.57). Maximal RA area could accurately predict elevated mean RA pressure low and high-risk thresholds (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve artificial intelligence = 0.82/0.87 vs manual = 0.78/0.83), and predicted mortality similar to manual measurements, both p < 0.01. In the QC evaluation, artificial intelligence segmentations were suboptimal at 108/3795 and a low failure rate of 16/3795. In a subcohort (n = 1018), agreement by two QC observers was excellent, kappa 0.84. Conclusion Automatic artificial intelligence CMR derived RA size and function are accurate, have excellent repeatability, moderate associations with invasive haemodynamics and predict mortality. Show less
