Search

An abstract of the article "Cusp fusion pattern in bicuspid aortic valve disease predicts severity of aortic flow abnormalities," by Malenka M. Bissell and colleagues is presented.

An abstract of the article "Evaluation of Circulation, Γ, as a quantifying metric in 4D flow MRI," by Aaron T. Hess, Malenka M. Bissell, Steffan J. Glaze, Alex Pitcher, Saul Myerson, Stefan Neubauer, and Matthew D. Robson is presented.

An abstract of the conference paper "3D cardiac navigation with rapid multi shot EPI," by Aaron T. Hess and colleagues is presented.

Background: Four-dimensional (4D) flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) allows sophisticated quantification of left atrial (LA) blood flow, and could yield novel biomarkers of propensity for intra-cardiac thrombus formation and embolic stroke. As reproducibility is critically important to diagnostic performance, we systematically investigated technical and temporal variation of LA 4D flow in atrial fibrillation (AF) and sinus rhythm (SR). Methods: Eighty-six subjects (SR, n = 64; AF, n = 22) with wide-ranging stroke risk (CHA2DS2VASc 0–6) underwent LA 4D flow assessment of peak and mean velocity, vorticity, vortex volume, and stasis. Eighty-five (99%) underwent a second acquisition within the same session, and 74 (86%) also returned at 30 (27–35) days for an interval scan. We assessed variability attributable to manual contouring (intra- and inter-observer), and subject repositioning and reacquisition of data, both within the same session (same-day scan–rescan), and over time (interval scan). Within-subject coefficients of variation (CV) and bootstrapped 95% CIs were calculated and compared. Results: Same-day scan–rescan CVs were 6% for peak velocity, 5% for mean velocity, 7% for vorticity, 9% for vortex volume, and 10% for stasis, and were similar between SR and AF subjects (all p > 0.05). Interval-scan variability was similar to same-day scan–rescan variability for peak velocity, vorticity, and vortex volume (all p > 0.05), and higher for stasis and mean velocity (interval scan CVs of 14% and 8%, respectively, both p < 0.05). Longitudinal changes in heart rate and blood pressure at the interval scan in the same subjects were associated with significantly higher variability for LA stasis (p = 0.024), but not for the remaining flow parameters (all p > 0.05). SR subjects showed significantly greater interval-scan variability than AF patients for mean velocity, vortex volume, and stasis (all p < 0.05), but not peak velocity or vorticity (both p > 0.05). Conclusions: LA peak velocity and vorticity are the most reproducible and temporally stable novel LA 4D flow biomarkers, and are robust to changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and differences in heart rhythm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Abnormal aortic flow patterns in bicuspid aortic valve disease (BAV) may be partly responsible for the associated aortic dilation. Aortic valve replacement (AVR) may normalize flow patterns and potentially slow the concomitant aortic dilation. We therefore sought to examine differences in flow patterns post AVR. Methods: Ninety participants underwent 4D flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance: 30 BAV patients with prior AVR (11 mechanical, 10 bioprosthetic, 9 Ross procedure), 30 BAV patients with a native aortic valve and 30 healthy subjects. Results: The majority of subjects with mechanical AVR or Ross showed normal flow pattern (73% and 67% respectively) with near normal rotational flow values (7.2 ± 3.9 and 10.6 ± 10.5 mm2/ms respectively vs 3.8 ± 3.1 mm2/s for healthy subjects; both p > 0.05); and reduced in-plane wall shear stress (0.19 ± 0.13 N/m2 for mechanical AVR vs. 0.40 ± 0.28 N/m2 for native BAV, p < 0.05). In contrast, all subjects with a bioprosthetic AVR had abnormal flow patterns (mainly marked right-handed helical flow), with comparable rotational flow values to native BAV (20.7 ± 8.8 mm2/ms and 26.6 ± 16.6 mm2/ms respectively, p > 0.05), and a similar pattern for wall shear stress. Data before and after AVR (n = 16) supported these findings: mechanical AVR showed a significant reduction in rotational flow (30.4 ± 16.3 → 7.3 ± 4.1 mm2/ms; p < 0.05) and in-plane wall shear stress (0.47 ± 0.20 → 0.20 ± 0.13 N/m2; p < 0.05), whereas these parameters remained similar in the bioprosthetic AVR group. Conclusions: Abnormal flow patterns in BAV disease tend to normalize after mechanical AVR or Ross procedure, in contrast to the remnant abnormal flow pattern after bioprosthetic AVR. This may in part explain different aortic growth rates post AVR in BAV observed in the literature, but requires confirmation in a prospective study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Quantification and visualisation of left ventricular (LV) blood flow is afforded by three-dimensional, time resolved phase contrast cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR 4D flow). However, few data exist upon the repeatability and variability of these parameters in a healthy population. We aimed to assess the repeatability and variability over time of LV 4D CMR flow measurements. Methods: Forty five controls underwent CMR 4D flow data acquisition. Of these, 10 underwent a second scan within the same visit (scan-rescan), 25 returned for a second visit (interval scan; median interval 52 days, IQR 28–57 days). The LV-end diastolic volume (EDV) was divided into four flow components: 1) Direct flow: inflow that passes directly to ejection; 2) Retained inflow: inflow that enters and resides within the LV; 3) Delayed ejection flow: starts within the LV and is ejected and 4) Residual volume: blood that resides within the LV for > 2 cardiac cycles. Each flow components’ volume was related to the EDV (volume-ratio). The kinetic energy at end-diastole (ED) was measured and divided by the components’ volume. Results: The dominant flow component in all 45 controls was the direct flow (volume ratio 38 ± 4%) followed by the residual volume (30 ± 4%), then delayed ejection flow (16 ± 3%) and retained inflow (16 ± 4%). The kinetic energy at ED for each component was direct flow (7.8 ± 3.0 microJ/ml), retained inflow (4.1 ± 2.0 microJ/ml), delayed ejection flow (6.3 ± 2.3 microJ/ml) and the residual volume (1.2 ± 0.5 microJ/ml). The coefficients of variation for the scan-rescan ranged from 2.5%–9.2% for the flow components’ volume ratio and between 13.5%–17.7% for the kinetic energy. The interval scan results showed higher coefficients of variation with values from 6.2–16.1% for the flow components’ volume ratio and 16.9–29.0% for the kinetic energy of the flow components. Conclusion: LV flow components’ volume and their associated kinetic energy values are repeatable and stable within a population over time. However, the variability of these measurements in individuals over time is greater than can be attributed to sources of error in the data acquisition and analysis, suggesting that additional physiological factors may influence LV flow measurements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]