Intraindividual validation of 4D flow measurement against 2D flow measurements in complex flow patterns in routine clinical cardiovascular magnetic resonance of bicuspid aortic valve

Quantitative evaluation of aortic valve regurgitation in 4D flow cardiac magnetic resonance: at which level should we measure?

PURPOSE

To find the best level to measure aortic flow for quantification of aortic regurgitation (AR) in 4D flow CMR.

METHODS

In 27 congenital heart disease patients with AR (67% male, 31 ± 16 years) two blinded observers measured antegrade, retrograde, net aortic flow volumes and regurgitant fractions at 6 levels in 4D flow: (1) below the aortic valve (AV), (2) at the AV, (3) at the aortic sinus, (4) at the sinotubular junction, (5) at the level of the pulmonary arteries (PA) and (6) below the brachiocephalic trunk. 2D phase contrast (2DPC) sequences were acquired at the level of PA. All patients received prior transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) with AR severity grading according to a recommended multiparametric approach.

RESULTS

After assigning 2DPC measurements into AR grading, agreement between TTE AR grading and 2DPC was good (κ = 0.88). In 4D flow, antegrade flow was similar between the six levels (p = 0.87). Net flow was higher at level 1-2 than at levels 3-6 (p < 0.05). Retrograde flow and regurgitant fraction at level 1-2 were lower compared to levels 3-6 (p < 0.05). Reproducibility (inter-reader agreement: ICC 0.993, 95% CI 0.986-0.99; intra-reader agreement: ICC 0.982, 95%CI 0.943-0.994) as well as measurement agreement between 4D flow and 2DPC (ICC 0.994; 95%CI 0.989 - 0.998) was best at the level of PA.

CONCLUSION

For estimating severity of AR in 4D flow, best reproducibility along with best agreement with 2DPC measurements can be expected at the level of PA. Measurements at AV or below AV might underestimate AR.