Validation of four-dimensional flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance for aortic stenosis assessment.

The management of patients with aortic stenosis (AS) crucially depends on accurate diagnosis. The main aim of this study were to validate the four-dimensional flow (4D flow) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) methods for AS assessment. Eighteen patients with clinically severe AS were recruited. All patients had pre-valve intervention 6MWT, echocardiography and CMR with 4D flow. Of these, ten patients had a surgical valve replacement, and eight patients had successful transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). TAVI patients had invasive pressure gradient assessments. A repeat assessment was performed at 3-4 months to assess the remodelling response. The peak pressure gradient by 4D flow was comparable to an invasive pressure gradient (54 ± 26 mmHG vs 50 ± 34 mmHg, P = 0.67). However, Doppler yielded significantly higher pressure gradient compared to invasive assessment (61 ± 32 mmHG vs 50 ± 34 mmHg, P = 0.0002). 6MWT was associated with 4D flow CMR derived pressure gradient (r = -0.45, P = 0.01) and EOA (r = 0.54, P < 0.01) but only with Doppler EOA (r = 0.45, P = 0.01). Left ventricular mass regression was better associated with 4D flow derived pressure gradient change (r = 0.64, P = 0.04). 4D flow CMR offers an alternative method for non-invasive assessment of AS. In addition, 4D flow derived valve metrics have a superior association to prognostically relevant 6MWT and LV mass regression than echocardiography.

Impact of socioeconomic status on survival following ST-elevation myocardial infarction in a universal healthcare system.

BACKGROUND: Lower socioeconomic status (SES) has been associated with worse outcomes after acute myocardial infarction. Data for survival after ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) by SES in the current era of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is more limited. METHODS: Data was collected for all patients with acute STEMI undergoing primary PCI at The South Yorkshire Cardiothoracic Centre, UK between 2009 and 2014. A Cox regression analysis was used to assess differences in survival by SES quartile (using an area-level measure). RESULTS: Of the 3126 STEMI patients, 2655 (84.9%) were first presentations of STEMI. Lower SES groups generally had a less favourable baseline cardiovascular risk factor profile, with higher rates of smoking (p = 0.001), diabetes (p = 0.007) and previous coronary heart disease (p = 0.025). With the exception of beta-blockers, the use of secondary preventative medications was similar between SES quartiles. Adjusting for age and gender, the most disadvantaged SES quartile trended to a non-significant increased mortality at 30 days (hazard ratio 1.35 (0.79-2.33)), 1 year (1.12 (0.76-1.65)), or 3 years (1.22 (0.88-1.70)) compared to the least disadvantaged SES quartile, but this was attenuated by adjusting for additional cardiovascular risk factors and medication use on discharge. CONCLUSIONS: In this large study of unselected STEMI patients managed by primary PCI, we did not find any significant differences in survival by SES at 30 days, 1 year, or 3 years.