Key result
Aortic valve repair significantly reduced aortic valve regurgitation from 16.7% to 6.4% and improved blood flow dynamics, including reduced helical and vortical flow.
Why the study?
Aortic valve repair is a treatment option for symptomatic BAV or UAV insufficiency, but the feasibility of 4D flow CMR to assess its impact on blood flow dynamics needed demonstration.
Does aortic valve repair improve blood flow dynamics as assessed by 4D flow CMR in patients with symptomatic bicuspid or unicuspid aortic valve disease?
Observational (n=20)
No
Does aortic valve repair improve blood flow dynamics as assessed by 4D flow CMR in patients with symptomatic bicuspid or unicuspid aortic valve disease?
Absolute Event Rate: 6.4% vs 16.7%
p-value: p=<0.001
4D flow CMR is a feasible and effective imaging modality for quantifying the significant improvements in aortic hemodynamics, including reduced regurgitation and normalized wall shear stress, following aortic valve repair in patients with bicuspid or unicuspid aortic valve disease.
Supports 4D flow CMR for post-repair assessment in bicuspid valves; extends observational data but remains hypothesis-generating.
Aortic valve repair has become a treatment option for adults with symptomatic bicuspid (BAV) or unicuspid (UAV) aortic valve insufficiency. Our aim was to demonstrate the feasibility of 4D flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) to assess the impact of aortic valve repair on changes in blood flow dynamics in patients with symptomatic BAV or UAV. Twenty patients with adult congenital heart disease (median 35 years, range 18–64; 16 male) and symptomatic aortic valve regurgitation (15 BAV, 5 UAV) were prospectively studied. All patients underwent 4D flow CMR before and after aortic valve repair. Aortic valve regurgitant fraction and systolic peak velocity were estimated. The degree of helical and vortical flow was evaluated according to a 3-point scale. Relative flow displacement and wall shear stress (WSS) were quantified at predefined levels in the thoracic aorta. All patients underwent successful aortic valve repair with a significant reduction of aortic valve regurgitation (16.7 ± 9.8% to 6.4 ± 4.4%, p < 0.001) and systolic peak velocity (2.3 ± 0.9 to 1.9 ± 0.4 m/s, p = 0.014). Both helical flow (1.6 ± 0.6 vs. 0.9 ± 0.5, p < 0.001) and vortical flow (1.2 ± 0.8 vs. 0.5 ± 0.6, p = 0.002) as well as both flow displacement (0.3 ± 0.1 vs. 0.25 ± 0.1, p = 0.031) and WSS (0.8 ± 0.2 N/m 2 vs. 0.5 ± 0.2 N/m 2 , p < 0.001) in the ascending aorta were significantly reduced after aortic valve repair. 4D flow CMR allows assessment of the impact of aortic valve repair on changes in blood flow dynamics in patients with bicuspid aortic valve disease.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lenz et al. (2020) conducted an observational in Symptomatic bicuspid or unicuspid aortic valve regurgitation (n=20). Aortic valve repair vs. Pre-operative baseline was evaluated on Aortic valve regurgitant fraction (p=<0.001). Aortic valve repair significantly reduced aortic valve regurgitation from 16.7% to 6.4% and improved blood flow dynamics, including reduced helical and vortical flow.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: