Department of Infection, Immunity & Cardiovascular Disease, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK.
Sci Rep. 2020 Jun 29;10(1):10569. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-66659-6.
The management of patients with aortic stenosis (AS) crucially depends on accurate diagnosis. The main aim of this study were to validate the four-dimensional flow (4D flow) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) methods for AS assessment. Eighteen patients with clinically severe AS were recruited. All patients had pre-valve intervention 6MWT, echocardiography and CMR with 4D flow. Of these, ten patients had a surgical valve replacement, and eight patients had successful transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). TAVI patients had invasive pressure gradient assessments. A repeat assessment was performed at 3-4 months to assess the remodelling response. The peak pressure gradient by 4D flow was comparable to an invasive pressure gradient (54 ± 26 mmHG vs 50 ± 34 mmHg, P = 0.67). However, Doppler yielded significantly higher pressure gradient compared to invasive assessment (61 ± 32 mmHG vs 50 ± 34 mmHg, P = 0.0002). 6MWT was associated with 4D flow CMR derived pressure gradient (r = -0.45, P = 0.01) and EOA (r = 0.54, P < 0.01) but only with Doppler EOA (r = 0.45, P = 0.01). Left ventricular mass regression was better associated with 4D flow derived pressure gradient change (r = 0.64, P = 0.04). 4D flow CMR offers an alternative method for non-invasive assessment of AS. In addition, 4D flow derived valve metrics have a superior association to prognostically relevant 6MWT and LV mass regression than echocardiography.
主动脉瓣狭窄(AS)患者的管理关键取决于准确的诊断。本研究的主要目的是验证四维血流(4D 流)心血管磁共振(CMR)在 AS 评估中的方法。
招募了 18 例临床上严重的 AS 患者。所有患者均在术前干预前 6MWT、超声心动图和 CMR 进行 4D 流检查。其中 10 例患者接受了外科瓣膜置换术,8 例患者接受了经导管主动脉瓣植入术(TAVI)。TAVI 患者进行了有创压力梯度评估。在 3-4 个月时进行重复评估,以评估重塑反应。4D 流的峰值压力梯度与有创压力梯度相当(54±26mmHg 比 50±34mmHg,P=0.67)。然而,多普勒测量的压力梯度明显高于有创评估(61±32mmHg 比 50±34mmHg,P=0.0002)。
6MWT 与 4D 流 CMR 衍生的压力梯度(r=-0.45,P=0.01)和 EOA(r=0.54,P<0.01)相关,但仅与多普勒 EOA 相关(r=-0.45,P=0.01)。左心室质量回归与 4D 流衍生的压力梯度变化更好相关(r=0.64,P=0.04)。
4D 流 CMR 为 AS 的非侵入性评估提供了一种替代方法。此外,与超声心动图相比,4D 流衍生的瓣膜指标与预后相关的 6MWT 和 LV 质量回归有更好的关联。