ACCURACY OF STROKE VOLUME BY PHASE CONTRAST CARDIOVASCULAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN AORTIC STENOSIS: A COMPARISON OF MEASURE IN LEFT VENTRICULAR OUTFLOW TRACT VS. ASCENDING AORTA

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (10) ◽  
pp. S77-S78
Author(s):  
H. Racine ◽  
E. Guzzetti ◽  
L. Tastet ◽  
M. Shen ◽  
É Larose ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Stroke Volume ◽  
Phase Contrast ◽  
Left Ventricular Outflow Tract ◽  
Ventricular Outflow Tract ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Ascending Aorta ◽  
Left Ventricular Outflow

scholarly journals Accuracy of stroke volume measurement with phase-contrast cardiovascular magnetic resonance in patients with aortic stenosis

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ezequiel Guzzetti ◽  
Hugo-Pierre Racine ◽  
Lionel Tastet ◽  
Mylène Shen ◽  
Eric Larose ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Stroke Volume ◽  
Phase Contrast ◽  
Strong Predictor ◽  
Volume Measurement ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Volumetric Method ◽  
Flow Measurements

Abstract Background Phase contrast (PC) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) in the ascending aorta (AAo) is widely used to calculate left ventricular (LV) stroke volume (SV). The accuracy of PC CMR may be altered by turbulent flow. Measurement of SV at another site is suggested in the presence of aortic stenosis, but very few data validates the accuracy or inaccuracy of PC in that setting. Our objective is to compare flow measurements obtained in the AAo and LV outflow tract (LVOT) in patients with aortic stenosis. Methods Retrospective analysis of patients with aortic stenosis who had CMR and echocardiography. Patients with mitral regurgitation were excluded. PC in the AAo and LVOT were acquired to derive SV. LV SV from end-systolic and end-diastolic tracings was used as the reference measure. A difference ≥ 10% between the volumetric method and PC derived SVs was considered discordant. Metrics of turbulence and jet eccentricity were assessed to explore the predictors of discordant measurements. Results We included 88 patients, 41% with bicuspid aortic valve. LVOT SV was concordant with the volumetric method in 79 (90%) patients vs 52 (59%) patients for AAo SV (p = 0.015). In multivariate analysis, aortic stenosis flow jet angle was a strong predictor of discordant measurement in the AAo (p = 0.003). Mathematical correction for the jet angle improved the concordance from 59 to 91%. Concordance was comparable in patients with bicuspid and trileaflet valves (57% and 62% concordance respectively; p = 0.11). Accuracy of SV measured in the LVOT was not influenced by jet eccentricity. For aortic regurgitation quantification, PC in the AAo had better correlation to volumetric assessments than LVOT PC. Conclusion LVOT PC SV in patients with aortic stenosis and eccentric jet might be more accurate compared to the AAo SV. Mathematical correction for the jet angle in the AAo might be another alternative to improve accuracy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document