Direct mitral regurgitation quantification in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy using 4D flow CMR jet tracking: evaluation in comparison to conventional CMR

Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance

Lubna Choudhury¹  Robert O. Bonow¹  Jeremy D. Collins²  Bradley D. Allen³  Ryan Avery³  Gilles Soulat³  Mohammed S. M. Elbaz³  Aakash N. Gupta³  James Carr³  Michael Markl⁴ 

[1] Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, 60611, Chicago, IL, USA;Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, 55902, Rochester, MN, USA;Department of Radiology, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, 737 N Michigan, Suite 1600, 60611, Chicago, IL, USA;Department of Radiology, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, 737 N Michigan, Suite 1600, 60611, Chicago, IL, USA;Department of Biomedical Engineering, Northwestern University, McCormick School of Engineering, 60208, Evanston, IL, USA;

关键词: Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy;    Mitral regurgitation;    Quantification;    4D flow CMR;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12968-021-00828-y

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundQuantitative evaluation of mitral regurgitation (MR) in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) by cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) relies on an indirect volumetric calculation. The aim of this study was to directly assess and quantify MR jets in patients with HCM using 4D flow CMR jet tracking in comparison to standard-of-care CMR indirect volumetric method.MethodsThis retrospective study included patients with HCM undergoing 4D flow CMR. By the indirect volumetric method from CMR, MR volume was quantified as left ventricular stroke volume minus forward aortic volume. By 4D flow CMR direct jet tracking, multiplanar reformatted planes were positioned in the peak velocity of the MR jet during systole to calculate through-plane regurgitant flow. MR severity was collected for agreement analysis from a clinical echocardiograms performed within 1 month of CMR. Inter-method and inter-observer agreement were assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Bland–Altman analysis, and Cohen’s kappa.ResultsThirty-seven patients with HCM were included. Direct jet tracking demonstrated good inter-method agreement of MR volume compared to the indirect volumetric method (ICC = 0.80, p = 0.004) and fair agreement of MR severity (kappa = 0.27, p = 0.03). Direct jet tracking showed higher agreement with echocardiography (kappa = 0.35, p = 0.04) than indirect volumetric method (kappa = 0.16, p = 0.35). Inter-observer reproducibility of indirect volumetric method components revealed the lowest reproducibility in end-systolic volume (ICC = 0.69, p = 0.15). Indirect volumetric method showed good agreement of MR volume (ICC = 0.80, p = 0.003) and fair agreement of MR severity (kappa = 0.38, p < 0.001). Direct jet tracking demonstrated (1) excellent inter-observer reproducibility of MR volume (ICC = 0.97, p < 0.001) and MR severity (kappa = 0.84, p < 0.001) and (2) excellent intra-observer reproducibility of MR volume (ICC = 0.98, p < 0.001) and MR severity (kappa = 0.88, p < 0.001).ConclusionsQuantifying MR and assessing MR severity by indirect volumetric method in HCM patients has limited inter-observer reproducibility. 4D flow CMR jet tracking is a potential alternative technique to directly quantify and assess MR severity with excellent inter- and intra-observer reproducibility and higher agreement with echocardiography in this population.

【 授权许可】

CC BY