Quantification of aortic valve area and left ventricular muscle mass in healthy subjects and patients with symptomatic aortic valve stenosis by MRI

Magnetic resonance measurement of turbulent kinetic energy for the estimation of irreversible pressure loss in aortic stenosis

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to measure the turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) in the ascending aorta of patients with aortic stenosis and to assess its relationship to irreversible pressure loss.

BACKGROUND

Irreversible pressure loss caused by energy dissipation in post-stenotic flow is an important determinant of the hemodynamic significance of aortic stenosis. The simplified Bernoulli equation used to estimate pressure gradients often misclassifies the ventricular overload caused by aortic stenosis. The current gold standard for estimation of irreversible pressure loss is catheterization, but this method is rarely used due to its invasiveness. Post-stenotic pressure loss is largely caused by dissipation of turbulent kinetic energy into heat. Recent developments in magnetic resonance flow imaging permit noninvasive estimation of TKE.

METHODS

The study was approved by the local ethics review board and all subjects gave written informed consent. Three-dimensional cine magnetic resonance flow imaging was used to measure TKE in 18 subjects (4 normal volunteers, 14 patients with aortic stenosis with and without dilation). For each subject, the peak total TKE in the ascending aorta was compared with a pressure loss index. The pressure loss index was based on a previously validated theory relating pressure loss to measures obtainable by echocardiography.

RESULTS

The total TKE did not appear to be related to global flow patterns visualized based on magnetic resonance-measured velocity fields. The TKE was significantly higher in patients with aortic stenosis than in normal volunteers (p < 0.001). The peak total TKE in the ascending aorta was strongly correlated to index pressure loss (R(2) = 0.91).

CONCLUSIONS

Peak total TKE in the ascending aorta correlated strongly with irreversible pressure loss estimated by a well-established method. Direct measurement of TKE by magnetic resonance flow imaging may, with further validation, be used to estimate irreversible pressure loss in aortic stenosis.

Electrocardiographic diagnosis of left ventricular hypertrophy in aortic valve disease: evaluation of ECG criteria by cardiovascular magnetic resonance

BACKGROUND

Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) is a hallmark of chronic pressure or volume overload of the left ventricle and is associated with risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The purpose was to evaluate different electrocardiographic criteria for LVH as determined by cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). Additionally, the effects of concentric and eccentric LVH on depolarization and repolarization were assessed.

METHODS

120 patients with aortic valve disease and 30 healthy volunteers were analysed. As ECG criteria for LVH, we assessed the Sokolow-Lyon voltage/product, Gubner-Ungerleider voltage, Cornell voltage/product, Perugia-score and Romhilt-Estes score.

RESULTS

All ECG criteria demonstrated a significant correlation with LV mass and chamber size. The highest predictive values were achieved by the Romhilt-Estes score 4 points with a sensitivity of 86% and specificity of 81%. There was no difference in all ECG criteria between concentric and eccentric LVH. However, the intrinsicoid deflection (V6 37 +/- 1.0 ms vs. 43 +/- 1.6 ms, p < 0.05) was shorter in concentric LVH than in eccentric LVH and amplitudes of ST-segment (V5 -0.06 +/- 0.01 vs. -0.02 +/- 0.01) and T-wave (V5 -0.03 +/- 0.04 vs. 0.18 +/- 0.05) in the anterolateral leads (p < 0.05) were deeper.

CONCLUSION

By calibration with CMR, a wide range of predictive values was found for the various ECG criteria for LVH with the most favourable results for the Romhilt-Estes score. As electrocardiographic correlate for concentric LVH as compared with eccentric LVH, a shorter intrinsicoid deflection and a significant ST-segment and T-wave depression in the anterolateral leads was noted.

Establishing a clinical cardiac MRI service

After several years of research development cardiovascular MRI has evolved into a widely accepted clinical tool. It offers important diagnostic and prognostic information for a variety of clinical indications, which include ischaemic heart disease, cardiomyopathies, valvular dysfunction and congenital heart disorders. It is a safe non-invasive technique that employs a variety of imaging sequences optimized for temporal or spatial resolution, tissue-specific contrast, flow quantification or angiography. Cardiac MRI offers specific advantages over conventional imaging techniques for a significant number of patients. The demand for cardiac MRI studies from cardiothoracic surgeons, cardiologists and other referrers is likely to continue to rise with pressure for more widespread local service provision. Setting up a cardiac MRI service requires careful consideration regarding funding issues and how it will be integrated with existing service provision. The purchase of cardiac phased array coils, monitoring equipment and software upgrades must also be considered, as well as the training needs of those involved. The choice of appropriate imaging protocols will be guided by operator experience, clinical indication and equipment capability, and is likely to evolve as the service develops. Post-processing and offline analysis form a significant part of the time taken to report studies and an efficient method of providing quantitative reports is an important requirement. Collaboration between radiologists and cardiologists is needed to develop a successful service and multi-disciplinary meetings are key component of this. This review will explore these issues from our perspective of a new clinical cardiac MRI service operating over its first year in a teaching hospital imaging department.

A hybrid approach for quantification of aortic valve stenosis using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and echocardiography:

We replaced Doppler-derived stroke volume in the continuity equation (method A) by either right heart catheterization-derived stroke volume (method B) or cardiovascular magnetic resonance-derived stroke volume (method C) to calculate aortic valve area in 20 consecutive patients with moderate or severe aortic stenosis. Comparison of both hybrid methods (methods B and C) by Bland-Altman analysis showed a mean difference near zero, a spread within two standard deviations and very similar limits of agreement. More importantly, all patients were classified into the same category of severity by both methods.