The Importance of Mitral Valve Prolapse Doming Volume in the Assessment of Left Ventricular Stroke Volume with Cardiac MRI.

There remains a debate whether the ventricular volume within prolapsing mitral valve (MV) leaflets should be included in the left ventricular (LV) end-systolic volume, and therefore factored in LV stroke volume (SV), in cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) assessments. This study aims to compare LV volumes during end-systolic phases, with and without the inclusion of the volume of blood on the left atrial aspect of the atrioventricular groove but still within the MV prolapsing leaflets, against the reference LV SV by four-dimensional flow (4DF). A total of 15 patients with MV prolapse (MVP) were retrospectively enrolled in this study. We compared LV SV with (LV SVMVP) and without (LV SVstandard) MVP left ventricular doming volume, using 4D flow (LV SV4DF) as the reference value. Significant differences were observed when comparing LV SVstandard and LV SVMVP (p < 0.001), and between LV SVstandard and LV SV4DF (p = 0.02). The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) test demonstrated good repeatability between LV SVMVP and LV SV4DF (ICC = 0.86, p < 0.001) but only moderate repeatability between LV SVstandard and LV SV4DF (ICC = 0.75, p < 0.01). Calculating LV SV by including the MVP left ventricular doming volume has a higher consistency with LV SV derived from the 4DF assessment. In conclusion, LV SV short-axis cine assessment incorporating MVP dooming volume can significantly improve the precision of LV SV assessment compared to the reference 4DF method. Hence, in cases with bi-leaflet MVP, we recommend factoring in MVP dooming into the left ventricular end-systolic volume to improve the accuracy and precision of quantifying mitral regurgitation.

Automated 4D flow cardiac MRI pipeline to derive peak mitral inflow diastolic velocities using short-axis cine stack: two centre validation study against echocardiographic pulse-wave doppler.

BACKGROUND: Measurement of peak velocities is important in the evaluation of heart failure. This study compared the performance of automated 4D flow cardiac MRI (CMR) with traditional transthoracic Doppler echocardiography (TTE) for the measurement of mitral inflow peak diastolic velocities. METHODS: Patients with Doppler echocardiography and 4D flow cardiac magnetic resonance data were included retrospectively. An established automated technique was used to segment the left ventricular transvalvular flow using short-axis cine stack of images. Peak mitral E-wave and peak mitral A-wave velocities were automatically derived using in-plane velocity maps of transvalvular flow. Additionally, we checked the agreement between peak mitral E-wave velocity derived by 4D flow CMR and Doppler echocardiography in patients with sinus rhythm and atrial fibrillation (AF) separately. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients were included (median age 69 years, IQR 63 to 76; 46% female). Data were split into three groups according to heart rhythm. The median peak E-wave mitral inflow velocity by automated 4D flow CMR was comparable with Doppler echocardiography in all patients (0.90 ± 0.43 m/s vs 0.94 ± 0.48 m/s, P = 0.132), sinus rhythm-only group (0.88 ± 0.35 m/s vs 0.86 ± 0.38 m/s, P = 0.54) and in AF-only group (1.33 ± 0.56 m/s vs 1.18 ± 0.47 m/s, P = 0.06). Peak A-wave mitral inflow velocity results had no significant difference between Doppler TTE and automated 4D flow CMR (0.81 ± 0.44 m/s vs 0.81 ± 0.53 m/s, P = 0.09) in all patients and sinus rhythm-only groups. Automated 4D flow CMR showed a significant correlation with TTE for measurement of peak E-wave in all patients group (r = 0.73, P < 0.001) and peak A-wave velocities (r = 0.88, P < 0.001). Moreover, there was a significant correlation between automated 4D flow CMR and TTE for peak-E wave velocity in sinus rhythm-only patients (r = 0.68, P < 0.001) and AF-only patients (r = 0.81, P = 0.014). Excellent intra-and inter-observer variability was demonstrated for both parameters. CONCLUSION: Automated dynamic peak mitral inflow diastolic velocity tracing using 4D flow CMR is comparable to Doppler echocardiography and has excellent repeatability for clinical use. However, 4D flow CMR can potentially underestimate peak velocity in patients with AF.