Key result
Four-dimensional CMR flow accurately measures cardiac index in PH, correlating highly with invasive methods.
Why the study?
The study was conducted to validate cardiac index measured noninvasively by 4D and 2D CMR flow against invasively measured cardiac index by right heart catheterization in patients with pulmonary hypertension.
Does 4D CMR flow accurately measure cardiac index compared to invasive right heart catheterization in patients with pulmonary hypertension?
Observational (n=30)
Does 4D CMR flow accurately measure cardiac index compared to invasive right heart catheterization in patients with pulmonary hypertension?
4D flow CMR provides an accurate, noninvasive measurement of cardiac index that correlates highly with invasive right heart catheterization in patients with pulmonary hypertension, outperforming conventional 2D flow.
May support noninvasive cardiac index assessment in pulmonary hypertension; leaves open prospective validation against invasive standards.
The purpose of this study was to validate cardiac index (CI) measured noninvasively by four‐dimensional (4D) and two‐dimensional (2D) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) flows against the invasively measured CI by right heart catheterization (RHC) in patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH). Thirty patients with PH (mean age: 32 ± 10 years) were included. 4D and 2D flow measured CI within 24 h from RHC measured CI invasively. Qualitative analysis of 4D pulmonary flow (vortex presence and eccentricity of flow) was performed. All patients had helical right‐sided flow with vortex formation; the mean vortex diameter was 29 ± 7 mm, occupying 69% of the main pulmonary artery (MPA) lumen. MPA was dilated (42 ± 9 mm). Mean CI measured by 4D flow CMR was closer to mean CI measured invasively (indirect Fick method CI = 2.1 ± 0.8 L/min/m 2 vs. PA 4D flow = 2.3 ± 0.7 L/min/m 2 “bias 0.22 ± 0.25 L/min, p = 0.001,” and Ao 4D flow = 2.3 ± 0.7 L/min/m 2 “bias 0.2 ± 0.28 L/min, p = 0.001”), while 2D flow had a higher mean CI (PA 2D flow = 2.5 ± 0.7 L/min/m 2 “bias 0.45 ± 0.7 L/min, p = 0.001” and Ao 2D flow = 2.5 ± 0.8 L/min/m 2 “bias 0.45 ± 0.67 L/min, p = 0.001”). The correlation coefficients among the different comparisons of CI showed: a low correlation between the 2D flow‐indirect Fick method (Ao r 2 = 0.37, PA r 2 = 0.32) and a high correlation between the 4D flow‐indirect Fick method (Ao r 2 = 0.86, PA r 2 = 0.89). There is an excellent agreement between CI measured by 4D flow and CI measured invasively. 4D flow, a noninvasive imaging technique, could accurately measure CI better than the conventional 2D flow in patients with PH.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Romeih et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Pulmonary hypertension (n=30). Four-dimensional (4D) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) flow vs. Invasive right heart catheterization (RHC) was evaluated on Cardiac index (CI) (bias 0.22 ± 0.25 L/min, p=0.001). Four-dimensional cardiovascular magnetic resonance flow accurately measured cardiac index in patients with pulmonary hypertension, showing high correlation with invasive measurement (PA r2=0.89).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: