TY - JOUR
T1 - Quantification of mitral valve regurgitation from 4d flow mri using semiautomated flow tracking
AU - Blanken, Carmen P. S.
AU - Westenberg, Jos J. M.
AU - Aben, Jean-Paul
AU - Bijvoet, Geertruida P.
AU - Chamuleau, Steven A. J.
AU - Matthijs Boekholdt, S.
AU - Nederveen, Aart J.
AU - Leiner, Tim
AU - van Ooij, Pim
AU - Nils Planken, R.
N1 - 2020 by the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.
PY - 2020/10/1
Y1 - 2020/10/1
N2 - Purpose: To compare the accuracy of semiautomated flow tracking with that of semiautomated valve tracking in the quantification of mitral valve (MV) regurgitation from clinical four-dimensional (4D) flow MRI data obtained in patients with mild, moderate, or severe MV regurgitation. Materials and Methods: The 4D flow MRI data were retrospectively collected from 30 patients (21 men; mean age, 61 years ± 10 [stan-dard deviation]) who underwent 4D flow MRI from 2006 to 2016. Ten patients had mild MV regurgitation, nine had moderate MV regurgitation, and 11 had severe MV regurgitation, as diagnosed by using semiquantitative echocardiography. The regurgitant volume (Rvol) across the MV was obtained using three methods: indirect quantification of Rvol (RvolINDIRECT ), semiautomated quantification of Rvol using valve tracking (RvolVALVE ), and semiautomated quantification of Rvol using flow tracking (RvolFLOW ). A second observer repeated the measurements. Aortic valve flow was quantified as well to test for intervalve consistency. The Wilcoxon signed rank test, orthogonal regression, Bland-Altman analysis, and coefficients of variation were used to assess agreement among measurements and between observers. Results: RvolFLOW was higher (median, 24.8 mL; interquartile range [IQR], 14.3–45.7 mL) than RvolVALVE (median, 9.9 mL; IQR, 6.0–16.9 mL; P < .001). Both RvolFLOW and RvolVALVE differed significantly from RvolINDIRECT (median, 19.1 mL; IQR, 4.1–47.5 mL; P = .03). RvolFLOW agreed more with RvolINDIRECT (ŷ = 0.78x + 12, r = 0.88) than with RvolVALVE (ŷ = 0.16x + 8.1, r = 0.53). Bland-Altman analysis revealed underestimation of RvolVALVE in severe MV regurgitation. Interobserver agreement was excellent for RvolFLOW (r = 0.95, coefficient of variation = 27%) and moderate for RvolVALVE (r = 0.72, coefficient of variation = 57%). Orthogonal regression demonstrated better intervalve consistency for flow tracking (ŷ = 1.2x-13.4, r = 0.82) than for valve tracking (ŷ = 2.7x-92.4, r = 0.67). Conclusion: Flow tracking enables more accurate 4D flow MRI–derived MV regurgitation quantification than valve tracking in terms of agreement with indirect quantification and intervalve consistency, particularly in severe MV regurgitation.
AB - Purpose: To compare the accuracy of semiautomated flow tracking with that of semiautomated valve tracking in the quantification of mitral valve (MV) regurgitation from clinical four-dimensional (4D) flow MRI data obtained in patients with mild, moderate, or severe MV regurgitation. Materials and Methods: The 4D flow MRI data were retrospectively collected from 30 patients (21 men; mean age, 61 years ± 10 [stan-dard deviation]) who underwent 4D flow MRI from 2006 to 2016. Ten patients had mild MV regurgitation, nine had moderate MV regurgitation, and 11 had severe MV regurgitation, as diagnosed by using semiquantitative echocardiography. The regurgitant volume (Rvol) across the MV was obtained using three methods: indirect quantification of Rvol (RvolINDIRECT ), semiautomated quantification of Rvol using valve tracking (RvolVALVE ), and semiautomated quantification of Rvol using flow tracking (RvolFLOW ). A second observer repeated the measurements. Aortic valve flow was quantified as well to test for intervalve consistency. The Wilcoxon signed rank test, orthogonal regression, Bland-Altman analysis, and coefficients of variation were used to assess agreement among measurements and between observers. Results: RvolFLOW was higher (median, 24.8 mL; interquartile range [IQR], 14.3–45.7 mL) than RvolVALVE (median, 9.9 mL; IQR, 6.0–16.9 mL; P < .001). Both RvolFLOW and RvolVALVE differed significantly from RvolINDIRECT (median, 19.1 mL; IQR, 4.1–47.5 mL; P = .03). RvolFLOW agreed more with RvolINDIRECT (ŷ = 0.78x + 12, r = 0.88) than with RvolVALVE (ŷ = 0.16x + 8.1, r = 0.53). Bland-Altman analysis revealed underestimation of RvolVALVE in severe MV regurgitation. Interobserver agreement was excellent for RvolFLOW (r = 0.95, coefficient of variation = 27%) and moderate for RvolVALVE (r = 0.72, coefficient of variation = 57%). Orthogonal regression demonstrated better intervalve consistency for flow tracking (ŷ = 1.2x-13.4, r = 0.82) than for valve tracking (ŷ = 2.7x-92.4, r = 0.67). Conclusion: Flow tracking enables more accurate 4D flow MRI–derived MV regurgitation quantification than valve tracking in terms of agreement with indirect quantification and intervalve consistency, particularly in severe MV regurgitation.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85102297911&origin=inward
UR - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33778618
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1148/ryct.2020200004
DO - https://doi.org/10.1148/ryct.2020200004
M3 - Article
C2 - 33778618
VL - 2
SP - e200004
JO - Radiology: Cardiothoracic Imaging
JF - Radiology: Cardiothoracic Imaging
IS - 5
M1 - e200004
ER -