Magnetic resonance imaging · 2020
4D Flow MRI hemodynamic benchmarking of surgical bioprosthetic valves.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Sturla Francesco, Piatti Filippo, Jaworek Michal, Lucherini Federico, Pluchinotta Francesca R, Siryk Sergii V, Giese Daniel, Vismara Riccardo, Tasca Giordano, Menicanti Lorenzo, Redaelli Alberto, Lombardi Massimo
Аннотация
PURPOSE: We exploited 4-dimensional flow magnetic resonance imaging (4D Flow), combined with a standardized in vitro setting, to establish a comprehensive benchmark for the systematic hemodynamic comparison of surgical aortic bioprosthetic valves (BPVs).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: 4D Flow analysis was performed on two small sizes of three commercialized pericardial BPVs (Trifecta™ GT, Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT Magna and Crown PRT®). Each BPV was tested over a clinically pertinent range of continuous flow rates within an in vitro MRI-compatible system, equipped with pressure transducers. In-house 4D Flow post-processing of the post-valvular velocity field included the quantification of BPV effective orifice area (EOA), transvalvular pressure gradients (TPG), kinetic energy and viscous energy dissipation.
RESULTS: The 4D Flow technique effectively captured the 3-dimensional flow pattern of each device. Trifecta exhibited the lowest range of velocity and kinetic energy, maximized EOA (p < 0.0001) and minimized TPGs (p ≤ 0.015) if compared with Magna and Crown, these reporting minor EOA difference s (p ≥ 0.042) and similar TPGs (p ≥ 0.25). 4D Flow TPGs estimations strongly correlated against ground-truth data from pressure transducers; viscous energy dissipation proved to be inversely proportional to the fluid jet penetration.
CONCLUSION: The proposed 4D Flow analysis pinpointed consistent hemodynamic differences among BPVs, highlighting the not negligible effect of device size on the fluidynamic outcomes. The efficacy of non-invasive 4D Flow MRI protocol could shed light on how standardize the comparison among devices in relation to their actual hemodynamic performances and improve current criteria for their selection.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: 4D Flow analysis was performed on two small sizes of three commercialized pericardial BPVs (Trifecta™ GT, Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT Magna and Crown PRT®). Each BPV was tested over a clinically pertinent range of continuous flow rates within an in vitro MRI-compatible system, equipped with pressure transducers. In-house 4D Flow post-processing of the post-valvular velocity field included the quantification of BPV effective orifice area (EOA), transvalvular pressure gradients (TPG), kinetic energy and viscous energy dissipation.
RESULTS: The 4D Flow technique effectively captured the 3-dimensional flow pattern of each device. Trifecta exhibited the lowest range of velocity and kinetic energy, maximized EOA (p < 0.0001) and minimized TPGs (p ≤ 0.015) if compared with Magna and Crown, these reporting minor EOA difference s (p ≥ 0.042) and similar TPGs (p ≥ 0.25). 4D Flow TPGs estimations strongly correlated against ground-truth data from pressure transducers; viscous energy dissipation proved to be inversely proportional to the fluid jet penetration.
CONCLUSION: The proposed 4D Flow analysis pinpointed consistent hemodynamic differences among BPVs, highlighting the not negligible effect of device size on the fluidynamic outcomes. The efficacy of non-invasive 4D Flow MRI protocol could shed light on how standardize the comparison among devices in relation to their actual hemodynamic performances and improve current criteria for their selection.