Clinical relevance of aortic conduit and reservoir function.

BACKGROUND: Aortic conduit and reservoir functions can be directly measured by four-dimensional flow (4D flow) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). METHODS: Twenty healthy controls (10 young and 10 age-gender-matched old controls) and 20 patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) were recruited. All had 4D flow CMR. Flow was quantified at the ascending and descending aorta levels. In addition, at the ascending aorta level, we quantified systolic flow displacement (FDs) and systolic flow reversal ratio (sFRR). The aortic conduit function was defined as the relative drop in systolic flow from the ascending to the descending aorta (∆Fs). Aortic reservoir function was defined as descending aortic diastolic stroke volume (DAo SVd). RESULTS: Both ∆Fs (R=0.51, p=0.001) and DAo SVd (R=-0.68, p=0.001) were significantly associated with ageing. Native T1 (R=0.51, p=0.001) and extracellular volume (R=0.51, p=0.001) showed maximum association with ∆Fs. ∆Fs significantly increased in HFpEF versus age-gender-matched controls (41±8% vs 52±12%, p=0.02). In multiple regression, only ∆Fs and DAo SVd were independent predictors of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (model R=0.77, p=0.0001). FDs was significantly associated with ∆Fs (R=0.4, p=0.01) and DAo SVd (R=-0.48, p=0.002), whereas sFRR was mainly associated with DAo SVd (R=-0.46, p=0.003). CONCLUSION: Both aortic conduit and reservoir function decline with age and this decline in aortic function is also independently associated with renal functional decline. Ascending aortic turbulent flow signatures are associated with loss of aortic conduit and reservoir functions. Finally, in HFpEF, aortic conduit and reservoir function demonstrate progressive decline. TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05114785.

Development and validation of AI-derived segmentation of four-chamber cine cardiac magnetic resonance.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) in the four-chamber plane offers comprehensive insight into the volumetrics of the heart. We aimed to develop an artificial intelligence (AI) model of time-resolved segmentation using the four-chamber cine. METHODS: A fully automated deep learning algorithm was trained using retrospective multicentre and multivendor data of 814 subjects. Validation, reproducibility, and mortality prediction were evaluated on an independent cohort of 101 subjects. RESULTS: The mean age of the validation cohort was 54 years, and 66 (65%) were males. Left and right heart parameters demonstrated strong correlations between automated and manual analysis, with a ρ of 0.91-0.98 and 0.89-0.98, respectively, with minimal bias. All AI four-chamber volumetrics in repeatability analysis demonstrated high correlation (ρ = 0.99-1.00) and no bias. Automated four-chamber analysis underestimated both left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) volumes compared to ground-truth short-axis cine analysis. Two correction factors for LV and RV four-chamber analysis were proposed based on systematic bias. After applying the correction factors, a strong correlation and minimal bias for LV volumetrics were observed. During a mean follow-up period of 6.75 years, 16 patients died. On stepwise multivariable analysis, left atrial ejection fraction demonstrated an independent association with death in both manual (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.96, p = 0.003) and AI analyses (HR = 0.96, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Fully automated four-chamber CMR is feasible, reproducible, and has the same real-world prognostic value as manual analysis. LV volumes by four-chamber segmentation were comparable to short-axis volumetric assessment. TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05114785. RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Integrating fully automated AI in CMR promises to revolutionise clinical cardiac assessment, offering efficient, accurate, and prognostically valuable insights for improved patient care and outcomes. KEY POINTS: • Four-chamber cine sequences remain one of the most informative acquisitions in CMR examination. • This deep learning-based, time-resolved, fully automated four-chamber volumetric, functional, and deformation analysis solution. • LV and RV were underestimated by four-chamber analysis compared to ground truth short-axis segmentation. • Correction bias for both LV and RV volumes by four-chamber segmentation, minimises the systematic bias.

Validation of Left Atrial Volume Correction for Single Plane Method on Four-Chamber Cine Cardiac MRI.

BACKGROUND: Left atrial (LA) assessment is an important marker of adverse cardiovascular outcomes. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) accurately quantifies LA volume and function based on biplane long-axis imaging. We aimed to validate single-plane-derived LA indices against the biplane method to simplify the post-processing of cine CMR. METHODS: In this study, 100 patients from Leeds Teaching Hospitals were used as the derivation cohort. Bias correction for the single plane method was applied and subsequently validated in 79 subjects. RESULTS: There were significant differences between the biplane and single plane mean LA maximum and minimum volumes and LA ejection fraction (EF) (all p < 0.01). After correcting for biases in the validation cohort, significant correlations in all LA indices were observed (0.89 to 0.98). The area under the curve (AUC) for the single plane to predict biplane cutoffs of LA maximum volume ≥ 112 mL was 0.97, LA minimum volume ≥ 44 mL was 0.99, LA stroke volume (SV) ≤ 21 mL was 1, and LA EF ≤ 46% was 1, (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: LA volumetric and functional assessment by the single plane method has a systematic bias compared to the biplane method. After bias correction, single plane LA volume and function are comparable to the biplane method.

Validation of 2D flow MRI for helical and vortical flows.

PURPOSE: The main objective of this study was to develop two-dimensional (2D) phase contrast (PC) methods to quantify the helicity and vorticity of blood flow in the aortic root. METHODS: This proof-of-concept study used four-dimensional (4D) flow cardiovascular MR (4D flow CMR) data of five healthy controls, five patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and five patients with aortic stenosis (AS). A PC through-plane generated by 4D flow data was treated as a 2D PC plane and compared with the original 4D flow. Visual assessment of flow vectors was used to assess helicity and vorticity. We quantified flow displacement (FD), systolic flow reversal ratio (sFRR) and rotational angle (RA) using 2D PC. RESULTS: For visual vortex flow presence near the inner curvature of the ascending aortic root on 4D flow CMR, sFRR demonstrated an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.955, p<0.001. A threshold of >8% for sFRR had a sensitivity of 82% and specificity of 100% for visual vortex presence. In addition, the average late systolic FD, a marker of flow eccentricity, also demonstrated an AUC of 0.909, p<0.001 for visual vortex flow. Manual systolic rotational flow angle change (ΔsRA) demonstrated excellent association with semiautomated ΔsRA (r=0.99, 95% CI 0.9907 to 0.999, p<0.001). In reproducibility testing, average systolic FD (FDsavg) showed a minimal bias at 1.28% with a high intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC=0.92). Similarly, sFRR had a minimal bias of 1.14% with an ICC of 0.96. ΔsRA demonstrated an acceptable bias of 5.72°-and an ICC of 0.99. CONCLUSION: 2D PC flow imaging can possibly quantify blood flow helicity (ΔRA) and vorticity (FRR). These imaging biomarkers of flow helicity and vorticity demonstrate high reproducibility for clinical adoption. TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05114785.

Cardiac MR modelling of systolic and diastolic blood pressure.

AIMS: Blood pressure (BP) is a crucial factor in cardiovascular health and can affect cardiac imaging assessments. However, standard outpatient cardiovascular MR (CMR) imaging procedures do not typically include BP measurements prior to image acquisition. This study proposes that brachial systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) can be modelled using patient characteristics and CMR data. METHODS: In this multicentre study, 57 patients from the PREFER-CMR registry and 163 patients from other registries were used as the derivation cohort. All subjects had their brachial SBP and DBP measured using a sphygmomanometer. Multivariate linear regression analysis was applied to predict brachial BP. The model was subsequently validated in a cohort of 169 healthy individuals. RESULTS: Age and left ventricular ejection fraction were associated with SBP. Aortic forward flow, body surface area and left ventricular mass index were associated with DBP. When applied to the validation cohort, the correlation coefficient between CMR-derived SBP and brachial SBP was (r=0.16, 95% CI 0.011 to 0.305, p=0.03), and CMR-derived DBP and brachial DBP was (r=0.27, 95% CI 0.122 to 0.403, p=0.0004). The area under the curve (AUC) for CMR-derived SBP to predict SBP>120 mmHg was 0.59, p=0.038. Moreover, CMR-derived DBP to predict DBP>80 mmHg had an AUC of 0.64, p=0.002. CONCLUSION: CMR-derived SBP and DBP models can estimate brachial SBP and DBP. Such models may allow efficient prospective collection, as well as retrospective estimation of BP, which should be incorporated into assessments due to its critical effect on load-dependent parameters.

Aortic flow is abnormal in HFpEF.

Aims: Turbulent aortic flow makes the cardiovascular system less effective. It remains unknown if patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have disturbed aortic flow. This study sought to investigate advanced markers of aortic flow disturbances in HFpEF. Methods: This case-controlled observational study used four-dimensional flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance derived, two-dimensional phase-contrast reformatted plane data at an orthogonal plane just above the sino-tubular junction. We recruited 10 young healthy controls (HCs), 10 old HCs and 23 patients with HFpEF. We analysed average systolic aortic flow displacement (FDsavg), systolic flow reversal ratio (sFRR) and pulse wave velocity (PWV). In a sub-group analysis, we compared old HCs versus age-gender-matched HFpEF (N=10). Results: Differences were significant in mean age (P<0.001) among young HCs (22.9±3.5 years), old HCs (60.5±10.2 years) and HFpEF patients (73.7±9.7 years). FDsavg, sFRR and PWV varied significantly (P<0.001) in young HCs (8±4%, 2±2%, 4±2m/s), old HCs (16±5%, 7±6%, 11±8m/s), and HFpEF patients (23±10%, 11±10%, 8±3). No significant PWV differences existed between old HCs and HFpEF.HFpEF had significantly higher FDsavg versus old HCs (23±10% vs 16±5%, P<0.001). A FDsavg > 17.7% achieved 74% sensitivity, 70% specificity for differentiating them. sFRR was notably higher in HFpEF (11±10% vs 7±6%, P<0.001). A sFRR > 7.3% yielded 78% sensitivity, 70% specificity in differentiating these groups. In sub-group analysis, FDsavg remained distinctly elevated in HFpEF (22.4±9.7% vs 16±4.9%, P=0.029). FDsavg of >16% showed 100% sensitivity and 70% specificity (P=0.01). Similarly, sFRR remained significantly higher in HFpEF (11.3±9.5% vs 6.6±6.4%, P=0.007). A sFRR of >7.2% showed 100% sensitivity and 60% specificity (P<0.001). Conclusion: Aortic flow haemodynamics namely FDsavg and sFRR are significantly affected in ageing and HFpEF patients.