Key result
4D Flow MRI-derived LV pressure-volume loops show high reproducibility and correlate well with invasive measurements.
Why the study?
Can left ventricular pressure-volume loops be reproducibly and accurately generated noninvasively using combined 4D Flow MRI and computational fluid dynamics?
Observational (n=11)
Can left ventricular pressure-volume loops be reproducibly and accurately generated noninvasively using combined 4D Flow MRI and computational fluid dynamics?
Effect estimate: ICC 0.55-0.99
Noninvasive left ventricular pressure-volume loops can be reproducibly generated using 4D Flow MRI and computational fluid dynamics, offering a promising alternative to invasive catheterization.
May enable noninvasive LV hemodynamics assessment; leaves open larger validation before clinical use.
A novel approach to generate left ventricular (LV) pressure–volume (PV) loops from combined 4D Flow MRI and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is presented. Pressure was calculated from person-specific three-dimensional (3D) CFD models created from LV segmentations and peak-systolic pressure from the one-dimensional 111-artery CFD model, with aortic flow from 4D Flow MRI as input. Ten healthy volunteers underwent scan–rescan MRI. Additionally, one patient without cardiovascular abnormalities underwent MRI and invasive catheter measurement for single-case comparison. Scan–rescan reproducibility was very good overall, with no significant differences in any parameters and ICCs of all parameters but minimum pressure were significant and high (0.55–0.99). Aortic flow of 3D CFD model correlated well with 4D Flow (ICC = 0.74) and stroke volume of LV segmentation (ICC = 0.90). Segmentation volume variability resulted in 12% difference in stroke work and mean external power, while aortic flow variability resulted in 10–11% difference in most parameters. Single-case comparison is promising, with only 1.8 mmHg and 0.005 mmHg/mL difference in minimum pressure and EDPVR, and <10% differences for other parameters. Noninvasive pressure–volume loops can therefore reproducibly be generated from only aortic flow, cine short axis MRI, and brachial pressure measurement. Single-case comparison shows promise, but larger validation studies are needed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Roos et al. (2025) conducted an observational in Healthy volunteers (n=11). Combined 4D Flow MRI and CFD for noninvasive LV PV loops vs. Invasive catheter measurement (single case) was evaluated on Scan-rescan reproducibility and correlation with invasive measurements (ICC 0.55-0.99). Noninvasive left ventricular pressure-volume loops generated from combined 4D Flow MRI and CFD showed high scan-rescan reproducibility (ICC 0.55-0.99) and correlated well with invasive measurements.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: