Key result
A 4D flow MRI analysis workflow identified significantly elevated net flow (91.1 vs 62.6 mL/s; P<0.001) in bicuspid aortic valve patients compared with healthy controls.
Why the study?
Four-dimensional flow MRI is limited by time-consuming and nonstandardized data analysis, prompting evaluation of the efficiency and interobserver reproducibility of a dedicated workflow.
Does a dedicated 4D flow MRI analysis workflow provide efficient and reproducible quantification of aortic blood flow in patients with bicuspid aortic valve?
Case-Control (n=60)
Does a dedicated 4D flow MRI analysis workflow provide efficient and reproducible quantification of aortic blood flow in patients with bicuspid aortic valve?
Effect estimate: 37.1% difference
Absolute Event Rate: 91.1% vs 62.6%
p-value: p=<0.001
A dedicated 4D flow MRI analysis workflow allows for rapid (under 10 minutes) and highly reproducible quantification of aortic blood flow and velocity in patients with bicuspid aortic valves.
Hypothesis-generating in BAV; leaves open clinical adoption of 4D flow MRI pending prospective validation.
BACKGROUND: Four-dimensional (D) flow magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is limited by time-consuming and nonstandardized data analysis. We aimed to test the efficiency and interobserver reproducibility of a dedicated 4D flow MRI analysis workflow. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty retrospectively identified patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV, age=47.8±11.8 y, 9 male) and 30 healthy controls (age=48.8±12.5 y, 21 male) underwent Aortic 4D flow MRI using 1.5 and 3 T MRI systems. Two independent readers performed 4D flow analysis on a dedicated workstation including preprocessing, aorta segmentation, and placement of four 2D planes throughout the aorta for quantification of net flow, peak velocity, and regurgitant fraction. 3D flow visualization using streamlines was used to grade aortic valve outflow jets and extent of helical flow. RESULTS: 4D flow analysis workflow time for both observers: 5.0±1.4 minutes per case (range=3 to 10 min). Valve outflow jets and flow derangement was visible in all 30 BAV patients (both observers). Net flow, peak velocity, and regurgitant fraction was significantly elevated in BAV patients compared with controls except for regurgitant fraction in plane 4 (91.1±29.7 vs. 62.6±19.6 mL/s, 37.1% difference; 121.7±49.7 vs. 90.9±26.4 cm/s, 28.9% difference; 9.3±10.1% vs. 2.0±3.4%, 128.0% difference, respectively; P<0.001). Excellent intraclass correlation coefficient agreement for net flow: 0.979, peak velocity: 0.931, and regurgitant fraction: 0.928. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates the potential of an efficient data analysis workflow to perform standardized 4D flow MRI processing in under 10 minutes and with good-to-excellent reproducibility for flow and velocity quantification in the thoracic aorta.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gordon et al. (2020) conducted a case-control in Bicuspid aortic valve (n=60). Bicuspid aortic valve vs. Healthy controls was evaluated on Net flow (37.1% difference, p=<0.001). A 4D flow MRI analysis workflow identified significantly elevated net flow (91.1 vs 62.6 mL/s; P<0.001) in bicuspid aortic valve patients compared with healthy controls.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: