Why the study?
CMR phase contrast flow quantification is usually performed during breath holding, which can be challenging in patients with dyspnea and heart failure.
Does a free-breathing CMR approach provide comparable flow quantification to the conventional breath-holding approach in healthy subjects and patients with tricuspid regurgitation?
Does a free-breathing CMR approach provide comparable flow quantification to the conventional breath-holding approach in healthy subjects and patients with tricuspid regurgitation?
Free-breathing CMR flow quantification shows good agreement with the standard breath-holding approach, offering a viable alternative for patients with dyspnea or heart failure who cannot hold their breath.
May support free-breathing CMR flow assessment in breathless patients; leaves open prospective validation before clinical adoption.
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) evaluation of valvular heart disease is an important diagnostic tool when echocardiography is inconclusive. Phase contrast flow quantification is usually performed during breath hold (BH), which can be challenging in patients suffering from dyspnea and heart failure. The purpose of the present study is to compare a free-breathing (FB) with the conventional BH approach for flow quantification in the aortic, pulmonary and tricuspid valves in 20 healthy subjects (HS) and 25 patients with tricuspid regurgitation (TR). Aortic (AoFF) and pulmonary forward flow volume (PuFF), and tricuspid inflow volume (TrIF) were evaluated. Mean, standard deviation (SD) and limits of agreement (LoA) were calculated. There were good agreements between phase contrast flow volumes obtained by FB and BH approach. Mean difference ± SD / LoA for AoFF during BH versus FB were 1 ± 6 / -10 to 13 ml. The corresponding for PuFF were 1 ± 6 / -11 to 13 ml, and for TrIF - 3 ± 6 / -15 to 9 ml, respectively. Thus, free-breathing CMR flow acquisition can be an important alternative in the assessment of stroke volume, valvular regurgitant volume and be useful in all patients with difficulties to hold their breath.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gao et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: