Iwamoto Yoichi, Inage Akio, Tomlinson George, Lee Kyong Jin, Grosse-Wortmann Lars, Seed Mike, Wan Andrea, Yoo Shi-Joon
Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Hospital for Sick Children and University of Toronto, 555 University Ave., Toronto, Ontario, M5G1X8, Canada.
Pediatr Radiol. 2014 Nov;44(11):1358-69. doi: 10.1007/s00247-014-3017-x. Epub 2014 Jun 18.
Phase-contrast magnetic resonance (MR) has been widely used for quantification of aortic regurgitation. However there is significant practice variability regarding where and how the blood flow data are acquired.
To compare the accuracy of flow quantification of aortic regurgitation at three levels: the ascending aorta at the level of the right pulmonary artery (level 1), the aortic valve hinge points at end-diastole (level 2) and the aortic valve hinge points at end-systole (level 3).
We performed cardiovascular MR in 43 children with aortic regurgitation. By using phase-contrast MR, we measured the systolic forward, diastolic retrograde and net forward flow volume indices at three levels. At each level, the following comparisons were made: (1) systolic forward flow volume index (FFVI) versus left ventricular cardiac index (LVCI) measured by cine ventricular volumetry; (2) retrograde flow volume index (RFVI) versus estimated aortic regurgitation volume index (which equals LVCI minus pulmonary blood flow index [QPI]); (3) net forward flow volume index (NFVI) versus pulmonary blood flow index.
The forward flow volume index, retrograde flow volume index and net forward flow volume index measured at each of the three levels were significantly different except for the retrograde flow volume index measured at levels 1 and 3. There were good correlations between the forward flow volume index and the left ventricular cardiac index at all three levels, with measurement at level 2 showing the best correlation. Compared to the forward flow volume indices, the retrograde flow volume index had a lower correlation with the estimated aortic regurgitation volume indices and had widely dispersed data with larger prediction intervals.
Large variations in systolic forward, diastolic retrograde and net forward flow volumes were observed at different levels of the aortic valve and ascending aorta. Direct measurement of aortic regurgitation volume and fraction is inaccurate and should be abandoned. Instead, calculation of the aortic regurgitation volume from more reliable data is advised. We recommend subtracting pulmonary blood flow from systolic forward flow measured at the aortic valve hinge points at end-diastole as a more accurate and consistent method for calculating the volume of aortic regurgitation.
相位对比磁共振成像(MR)已广泛用于主动脉瓣反流的定量分析。然而,在血流数据采集的位置和方式上存在显著的实践差异。
比较三个层面主动脉瓣反流流量定量的准确性:右肺动脉水平的升主动脉(层面1)、舒张末期主动脉瓣铰链点(层面2)和收缩末期主动脉瓣铰链点(层面3)。
对43例主动脉瓣反流患儿进行心血管磁共振成像检查。采用相位对比磁共振成像,测量三个层面的收缩期正向、舒张期逆向和净正向血流量指数。在每个层面进行以下比较:(1)收缩期正向血流量指数(FFVI)与通过电影心室容积测量法测得的左心室心指数(LVCI);(2)逆向血流量指数(RFVI)与估计的主动脉瓣反流容积指数(等于LVCI减去肺血流量指数[QPI]);(3)净正向血流量指数(NFVI)与肺血流量指数。
除层面1和层面3测得的逆向血流量指数外,三个层面测得的正向血流量指数、逆向血流量指数和净正向血流量指数均有显著差异。三个层面的正向血流量指数与左心室心指数之间均具有良好的相关性,其中层面2的测量相关性最佳。与正向血流量指数相比,逆向血流量指数与估计的主动脉瓣反流容积指数的相关性较低,且数据分布广泛,预测区间较大。
在主动脉瓣和升主动脉的不同层面观察到收缩期正向、舒张期逆向和净正向血流量存在较大差异。直接测量主动脉瓣反流容积和反流分数不准确,应予以摒弃。相反,建议根据更可靠的数据计算主动脉瓣反流容积。我们建议,将舒张末期主动脉瓣铰链点测得的收缩期正向血流量减去肺血流量,作为计算主动脉瓣反流容积更准确和一致的方法。