Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (Nov 2021)

Peak flow measurements in patients with severe aortic stenosis: a prospective comparative study between cardiovascular magnetic resonance 2D and 4D flow and transthoracic echocardiography

  • Reetta Hälvä,
  • Satu M. Vaara,
  • Juha I. Peltonen,
  • Touko T. Kaasalainen,
  • Miia Holmström,
  • Jyri Lommi,
  • Satu Suihko,
  • Helena Rajala,
  • Minna Kylmälä,
  • Sari Kivistö,
  • Suvi Syväranta

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12968-021-00825-1
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 23, no. 1
pp. 1 – 10

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Aortic valve stenosis (AS) is the most prevalent valvular disease in the developed countries. Four-dimensional (4D) flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is an emerging imaging technique, which has been suggested to improve the evaluation of AS severity compared to two-dimensional (2D) flow and transthoracic echocardiography (TTE). We investigated the reliability of CMR 2D flow and 4D flow techniques in measuring aortic transvalvular peak systolic flow in patients with severe AS. Methods We prospectively recruited 90 patients referred for aortic valve replacement due to severe AS (73.3 ± 11.3 years, aortic valve area 0.7 ± 0.1 cm2, and 54/36 tricuspid/bicuspid), and 10 non-valvular disease controls. All the patients underwent echocardiography and 2D flow and 4D flow CMR. Peak flow velocity measurements were compared using Wilcoxon signed rank sum test and Bland–Altman analysis. Results 4D flow underestimated peak flow velocity in the AS group when compared with TTE (bias − 1.1 m/s, limits of agreement ± 1.4 m/s) and 2D flow (bias − 1.2 m/s, limits of agreement ± 1.6 m/s). The differences between values obtained by TTE (median 4.3 m/s, range 2.7–6.1 m/s) and 2D flow (median 4.5 m/s, range 2.9–6.5 m/s) compared to 4D flow (median 3.1 m/s, range 1.7–5.1 m/s) were significant (p < 0.001). The difference between 2D flow and TTE were insignificant (bias 0.07 m/s, limits of agreement ± 1.5 m/s). In non-valvular disease controls, peak flow velocity was measured higher by 4D flow than 2D flow (1.4 m/s, 1.1–1.7 m/s and 1.3 m/s, 1.1–1.5 m/s, respectively; bias 0.2 m/s, limits of agreement ± 0.16 m/s). Conclusions CMR 4D flow significantly underestimates systolic peak flow velocity in patients with severe AS. 2D flow, in turn, estimated the AS velocity accurately, with measured peak flow velocities comparable to TTE.

Keywords