Non-invasive determination of pressure recovery by cardiac MRI and echocardiography in patients with severe aortic stenosis: short and long-term outcome prediction

Objective To assess the influence of pressure recovery (PR)-corrected haemodynamic parameters on outcome in patients with aortic stenosis. Methods Aortic stenosis severity parameters were corrected for PR (increase in static pressure due to decreasing dynamic pressure), assessed using transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) or cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR), in patients with aortic stenosis. PR, indexed PR (iPR) and energy loss index (ELI) were determined. Factors that predicted all-cause mortality, and 9-month or 10-year New York Heart Association classification ≥2 were assessed using Cox proportional hazards regression. Results A total of 25 patients, aged 68 ± 10 years, were included. PR was 17 ± 6 mmHg using CMR, and CMR correlated with TTE measurements. PR correction using CMR data reduced the AS-severity classification in 12–20% of patients, and correction using TTE data reduced the AS-severity classification in 16% of patients. Age (Wald 4.774) was a statistically significant predictor of all-cause mortality; effective orifice area (Wald 3.753) and ELI (Wald 3.772) almost reached significance. Conclusions PR determination may result in significant reclassification of aortic stenosis severity and may hold value in predicting all-cause mortality.

[1]  M. Takeuchi,et al.  Prognostic Value of Energy Loss Coefficient for Predicting Asymptomatic Aortic Stenosis Outcomes: Direct Comparison With Aortic Valve Area , 2019, Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography : official publication of the American Society of Echocardiography.

[2]  M. Markl,et al.  The Role of Imaging of Flow Patterns by 4D Flow MRI in Aortic Stenosis. , 2019, JACC. Cardiovascular imaging.

[3]  C. Tribouilloy,et al.  Prospective assessment of the frequency of low gradient severe aortic stenosis with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction: Critical impact of aortic flow misalignment and pressure recovery phenomenon. , 2018, Archives of cardiovascular diseases.

[4]  R. Bauernschmitt,et al.  Extent of size, shape and systolic variability of the left ventricular outflow tract in aortic stenosis determined by phase-contrast MRI. , 2018, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[5]  B. Gerber,et al.  Impact of left ventricular outflow tract ellipticity on the grading of aortic stenosis in patients with normal ejection fraction , 2017, Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance.

[6]  R. Rubinshtein,et al.  The effect of aortic area measurement site on the energy loss coefficient: a comparison between echocardiography and cardiac computed tomography angiography in patients with aortic stenosis , 2016, Echocardiography.

[7]  Hojin Ha,et al.  Estimation of turbulent kinetic energy using 4D phase-contrast MRI: Effect of scan parameters and target vessel size. , 2016, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[8]  G. Kim,et al.  Turbulent Kinetic Energy Measurement Using Phase Contrast MRI for Estimating the Post-Stenotic Pressure Drop: In Vitro Validation and Clinical Application , 2016, PloS one.

[9]  W. Rottbauer,et al.  Non-contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography is equal to contrast-enhanced multislice computed tomography for correct aortic sizing before transcatheter aortic valve implantation , 2016, Clinical Research in Cardiology.

[10]  T. Lüscher,et al.  Impact of Three‐Dimensional Imaging and Pressure Recovery on Echocardiographic Evaluation of Severe Aortic Stenosis: A Pilot Study , 2014, Echocardiography.

[11]  Y. Neishi,et al.  Impact of energy loss index on left ventricular mass regression after aortic valve replacement , 2013, Journal of Echocardiography.

[12]  J. Chambers,et al.  Prognostic Value of Energy Loss Index in Asymptomatic Aortic Stenosis , 2013, Circulation.

[13]  E. Tseng,et al.  Magnetic resonance measurement of turbulent kinetic energy for the estimation of irreversible pressure loss in aortic stenosis. , 2013, JACC. Cardiovascular imaging.

[14]  M. Worthley,et al.  Aortic annulus dimension assessment by computed tomography for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: differences between systole and diastole , 2012, The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.

[15]  D. Capodanno,et al.  Cardiovascular magnetic resonance for the assessment of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a pilot study , 2011, Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance.

[16]  K. Kuck,et al.  Aortic root geometry in aortic stenosis patients (a SEAS substudy). , 2011, European journal of echocardiography : the journal of the Working Group on Echocardiography of the European Society of Cardiology.

[17]  P. Parizel,et al.  Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging of aortic valve stenosis and aortic root to multimodality imaging for selection of transcatheter aortic valve implantation candidates. , 2011, The American journal of cardiology.

[18]  K. Kuck,et al.  Impact of pressure recovery on echocardiographic assessment of asymptomatic aortic stenosis: a SEAS substudy. , 2010, JACC. Cardiovascular imaging.

[19]  Jennifer Keegan,et al.  Aortic Root Measurement by Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance: Specification of Planes and Lines of Measurement and Corresponding Normal Values , 2008, Circulation. Cardiovascular imaging.

[20]  Guang-Zhong Yang,et al.  Motion-compensated MR valve imaging with COMB tag tracking and super-resolution enhancement , 2007, Medical Image Anal..

[21]  Guang-Zhong Yang,et al.  Motion-Compensated MR Valve Imaging with COMB Tag Tracking and Super-Resolution Enhancement , 2006, MICCAI.

[22]  Gideon Sahar,et al.  Comparison of diameter of ascending aorta in patients with severe aortic stenosis secondary to congenital versus degenerative versus rheumatic etiologies. , 2005, The American journal of cardiology.

[23]  Damien Garcia,et al.  Discrepancies between catheter and Doppler estimates of valve effective orifice area can be predicted from the pressure recovery phenomenon: practical implications with regard to quantification of aortic stenosis severity. , 2003, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[24]  M. Chandra,et al.  Jet eccentricity: a misleading source of agreement between Doppler/catheter pressure gradients in aortic stenosis. , 2001, Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography : official publication of the American Society of Echocardiography.

[25]  P. Pibarot,et al.  Assessment of aortic valve stenosis severity: A new index based on the energy loss concept. , 2000, Circulation.

[26]  K. Karsch,et al.  Extent, determinants and clinical importance of pressure recovery in patients with aortic valve stenosis. , 1999, European heart journal.

[27]  G Maurer,et al.  "Overestimation" of catheter gradients by Doppler ultrasound in patients with aortic stenosis: a predictable manifestation of pressure recovery. , 1999, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[28]  J. Chambers Is pressure recovery an important cause of "Doppler aortic stenosis" with no gradient at cardiac catheterisation? , 1996, Heart.

[29]  C. Clark,et al.  The fluid mechanics of aortic stenosis--I. Theory and steady flow experiments. , 1976, Journal of biomechanics.

[30]  C Clark,et al.  The fluid mechanics of aortic stenosis - II. Unsteady flow experiments. , 1976, Journal of biomechanics.