International journal of cardiology · 2024
Quantifying aortic valve regurgitation in patients with congenital aortic valve disease by 2D and 4D flow magnetic resonance analysis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gerhardt Philip, Shehu Nerejda, Ferrari Irene, Hüllebrandt Markus, Hennemuth Anja, Martinoff Stefan, Ewert Peter, Stern Heiko, Meierhofer Christian
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: In congenital aortic valve disease, quantifying aortic regurgitation (AR) varies by the measurement site. Our study aimed to identify the optimal site for AR assessment using 2D and 4D MR flow measurements, with a focus on vortices.
METHODS: We retrospectively analysed 31 patients with congenital aortic valve disease, performing 2D and 4D MR flow measurements at the aortic valve, sinotubular junction (STJ), ascending aorta (AAo), and using midpulmonary artery measurements as a reference. We assessed percentage AR and net forward volumes, calculated linear correlations, and plotted Bland-Altman plots. Net forward flow at all aortic sites were correlated with the main pulmonary artery. Differences in AR between 2D and 4D flows were linked to vortices detected by 4D streamlines.
RESULTS: The best agreement in % AR between 2D and 4D flows was at the aortic valve (mean difference 4D2D -2.9%, limits of agreement 8.7% to -14.3%; r2 = 0.7). Correlations weakened at STJ and AAo. Vortices in the ascending aorta led to AR overestimation in 2D measurements. Net forward flow at the aortic valve by 4D flow correlated closer with main pulmonary artery than did 2D flow. (Mean difference for 2D and 4D MR flow 7.5 ml and 4.2 ml, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: For congenital aortic valve disease, the most accurate AR quantification occurs at the aortic valve using 2D and 4D MR flow. Notably, vortices in the ascending aorta can result in AR overestimation with 2D MR flow.
METHODS: We retrospectively analysed 31 patients with congenital aortic valve disease, performing 2D and 4D MR flow measurements at the aortic valve, sinotubular junction (STJ), ascending aorta (AAo), and using midpulmonary artery measurements as a reference. We assessed percentage AR and net forward volumes, calculated linear correlations, and plotted Bland-Altman plots. Net forward flow at all aortic sites were correlated with the main pulmonary artery. Differences in AR between 2D and 4D flows were linked to vortices detected by 4D streamlines.
RESULTS: The best agreement in % AR between 2D and 4D flows was at the aortic valve (mean difference 4D2D -2.9%, limits of agreement 8.7% to -14.3%; r2 = 0.7). Correlations weakened at STJ and AAo. Vortices in the ascending aorta led to AR overestimation in 2D measurements. Net forward flow at the aortic valve by 4D flow correlated closer with main pulmonary artery than did 2D flow. (Mean difference for 2D and 4D MR flow 7.5 ml and 4.2 ml, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: For congenital aortic valve disease, the most accurate AR quantification occurs at the aortic valve using 2D and 4D MR flow. Notably, vortices in the ascending aorta can result in AR overestimation with 2D MR flow.