Key result
CS-4D CMR provided interchangeable estimations of mean pulmonary artery pressure compared to CS-M2D (R2=0.93) and showed excellent agreement with invasive right heart catheterization (R2=0.86).
Why the study?
While compressed sensing acceleration of a multiple 2D flow sequence non-invasively estimates mPAP, true time-resolved 3D excitation offers theoretical spatiotemporal coherence advantages but needed validation.
Does CS-4D CMR provide interchangeable estimations of mean pulmonary artery pressure compared to CS-M2D and invasive RHC in patients referred for CMR?
Observational (n=45)
Does CS-4D CMR provide interchangeable estimations of mean pulmonary artery pressure compared to CS-M2D and invasive RHC in patients referred for CMR?
Effect estimate: R2 = 0.86 (CS-4D vs RHC)
p-value: p=< 0.001
CS-4D and CS-M2D CMR sequences provide interchangeable and accurate non-invasive estimations of mean pulmonary artery pressure compared to invasive right heart catheterization.
Supports CS-4D CMR for non-invasive mPAP estimation; leaves open prospective validation before practice change.
Aims 4D phase-contrast cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) allows for non-invasive estimation of mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) by estimating the duration of pathological vortex persistence in the main pulmonary artery. This has previously been achieved with compressed sensing acceleration of a multiple 2D (CS-M2D) flow sequence, but acquisition using a true time-resolved 3D excitation (CS-4D) offers theoretical advantages including spatiotemporal coherence. This study aimed to validate a state-of-the-art CS-4D sequence with a previously utilized CS-M2D sequence for estimating mPAP, comparing both to right heart catheterization (RHC). Methods and results The study included patients clinically referred for CMR (n = 45), of which a subgroup (n = 20) had prior mPAP of >16 mmHg confirmed by RHC. CMR was performed at 1.5T using CS-M2D and CS-4D sequences covering the main pulmonary artery. mPAP was estimated using a previously published linear relationship between vortex duration and mPAP. Agreement between CS-M2D and CS-4D estimates was quantified, including analysis of intra- and interobserver variabilities. CS-M2D and CS-4D both had average scan durations under 3 min (175 ± 36 and 135 ± 34 s, respectively). Estimated mPAP by CS-4D and CS-M2D were strongly correlated (R2 = 0.93, P < 0.001), with negligible mean ± SD bias (0.0 ± 2.7 mmHg) and good reproducibility. There was excellent agreement with RHC for both CS-M2D (R2 = 0.92, P < 0.001, bias 0.6 ± 3.1 mmHg) and CS-4D (R2 = 0.86, P < 0.001, bias 1.1 ± 4.5 mmHg). Conclusion CS-4D and CS-M2D sequences yield interchangeable estimations of mPAP, with excellent agreement to invasive RHC. Both be acquired in a scan time applicable to clinical workflow, offering promising tools for non-invasive mPAP estimation in clinical practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Abdula et al. (2025) conducted an observational in Patients clinically referred for CMR (n=45). CS-4D cardiovascular magnetic resonance vs. CS-M2D cardiovascular magnetic resonance and right heart catheterization was evaluated on Agreement of estimated mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) (R2 = 0.86 (CS-4D vs RHC), p=< 0.001). CS-4D CMR provided interchangeable estimations of mean pulmonary artery pressure compared to CS-M2D (R2=0.93) and showed excellent agreement with invasive right heart catheterization (R2=0.86).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: