Why the study?
Does fast 3-directional phase-contrast CMR improve the estimation of hemodynamic parameters in patients with aortic stenosis compared to 1-directional phase-contrast CMR?
Does fast 3-directional phase-contrast CMR improve the estimation of hemodynamic parameters in patients with aortic stenosis compared to 1-directional phase-contrast CMR?
Fast 3-directional phase-contrast CMR provides more accurate estimation of hemodynamic parameters in aortic stenosis than traditional 1-directional CMR, correlating well with echocardiography.
Multi-directional PC-CMR may better capture peak velocities in misaligned planes; hypothesis-generating for AS assessment, prospective validation required before practice change.
BACKGROUND: Aortic stenosis (AS) is a common valvular disorder, and disease severity is currently assessed by transthoracic echocardiography (TTE). However, TTE results can be inconsistent in some patients, thus other diagnostic modalities such as cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) are demanded. While traditional unidirectional phase-contrast CMR (1Dir PC-CMR) underestimates velocity if the imaging plane is misaligned to the flow direction, multi-directional acquisitions are expected to improve velocity measurement accuracy. Nonetheless, clinical use of multidirectional techniques has been hindered by long acquisition times. Our goal was to quantify flow parameters in patients using 1Dir PC-CMR and a faster multi-directional technique (3Dir PC-CMR), and compare to TTE. METHODS: Twenty-three patients were prospectively assessed with TTE and CMR. Slices above the aortic valve were acquired for both PC-CMR techniques and cine SSFP images were acquired to quantify left ventricular stroke volume. 3Dir PC-CMR implementation included a variable density sampling pattern with acceleration rate of 8 and a reconstruction method called ReVEAL, to significantly accelerate acquisition. 3Dir PC-CMR reconstruction was performed offline and ReVEAL-based image recovery was performed on the three (x, y, z) encoding pairs. 1Dir PC-CMR was acquired with GRAPPA acceleration rate of 2 and reconstructed online. CMR derived flow parameters and aortic valve area estimates were compared to TTE. RESULTS: were 0.81 and 0.87, respectively. In comparison to ReVEAL, TTE slightly underestimates peak velocities, which is not surprising as TTE is only sensitive to flow that is parallel to the acoustic beam. CONCLUSIONS: By exploiting structure unique to PC-CMR, ReVEAL enables multi-directional flow imaging in clinically feasible acquisition times. Results support the hypothesis that ReVEAL-based 3Dir PC-CMR provides better estimation of hemodynamic parameters in AS patients in comparison to 1Dir PC-CMR. While TTE can accurately measure velocity parallel to the acoustic beam, it is not sensitive to the other directions of flow. Therefore, multi-directional flow imaging, which encodes all three components of the velocity vector, can potentially outperform TTE in patients with eccentric or multiple jets.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Silveira et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: