RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: We aim to validate four-dimensional flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance (4D flow CMR) peak velocity tracking methods for measuring the peak velocity of mitral inflow against Doppler echocardiography. METHOD: Fifty patients were recruited who had 4D flow CMR and Doppler Echocardiography. After transvalvular flow segmentation using established valve tracking methods, peak velocity was automatically derived using three-dimensional streamlines of transvalvular flow. In addition, a static-planar method was used at the tip of mitral valve to mimic Doppler technique. RESULTS: Peak E-wave mitral inflow velocity was comparable between TTE and the novel 4D flow automated dynamic method (0.9 ± 0.5 vs 0.94 ± 0.6 m/s; p = 0.29) however there was a statistically significant difference when compared with the static planar method (0.85 ± 0.5 m/s; p = 0.01). Median A-wave peak velocity was also comparable across TTE and the automated dynamic streamline (0.77 ± 0.4 vs 0.76 ± 0.4 m/s; p = 0.77). A significant difference was seen with the static planar method (0.68 ± 0.5 m/s; p = 0.04). E/A ratio was comparable between TTE and both the automated dynamic and static planar method (1.1 ± 0.7 vs 1.15 ± 0.5 m/s; p = 0.74 and 1.15 ± 0.5 m/s; p = 0.5 respectively). Both novel 4D flow methods showed good correlation with TTE for E-wave (dynamic method; r = 0.70; P < 0.001 and static-planar method; r = 0.67; P < 0.001) and A-wave velocity measurements (dynamic method; r = 0.83; P < 0.001 and static method; r = 0.71; P < 0.001). The automated dynamic method demonstrated excellent intra/inter-observer reproducibility for all parameters. CONCLUSION: Automated dynamic peak velocity tracing method using 4D flow CMR is comparable to Doppler echocardiography for mitral inflow assessment and has excellent reproducibility for clinical use.