Magnetic resonance left ventricular hemodynamic analysis: a normal value study of two methods
10.3760/cma.j.cn431274-20231109-00535
- VernacularTitle:磁共振左室血流动力分析：两种方法的正常值研究
- Author:
Huaying ZHANG
1
;
Wenjing YANG
;
Jing XU
;
Di ZHOU
;
Yining WANG
;
Leyi ZHU
;
Mengdi JIANG
;
Gang YIN
;
Shihua ZHAO
;
Minjie LU
Author Information
1. 中国医学科学院北京协和医学院阜外医院磁共振影像科，北京 100037
- Keywords:
Cardiac imaging techniques;
Magnetic resonance imaging;
Mitral valve;
Hemodynamics
- From:
Journal of Chinese Physician
2024;26(1):12-17
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objectives:To analyze the consistency of evaluating left ventricular hemodynamics (HDF) based on single plane and multi plane cine sequences of magnetic resonance mitral valve orifice.Methods:A prospective study was conducted on 48 healthy adults, and two methods were used to measure the mitral valve diameter and calculate HDF parameters. The first method was to measure the diameter of the mitral valve opening in the left ventricular three chamber cine sequence; The second method is to measure the mitral valve diameter using cine sequences of two chamber, three chamber, and four chamber hearts, and then take the average value. Paired t-tests were used to compare the differences in HDF measured by two methods, and Pearson correlation coefficient ( r), intra group correlation coefficient ( ICC), and Bland-Altman analysis were used to test the consistency and reproducibility of the two methods. Results:The root mean square (RMS) of longitudinal HDF calculated using single plane and multi plane mitral valve diameters were [(17.28±4.41)% vs (17.21±4.61)%] ( P=0.379) for the entire cardiac cycle, [(21.45±5.54)% vs (21.49±5.68)%] ( P=0.646) for systolic phase, and [(12.78±4.10)% vs (12.54±4.24)%] ( P=0.106) for diastolic phase, respectively. The difference in the calculation results of HDF parameters related to ventricular function was not statistically significant (all P>0.05), and there was good consistency ( r=0.924-0.996, ICC=0.924-0.995). The two HDF parameters related to atrial function were sensitive to the measurement method of mitral valve orifice diameter [RMS of longitudinal HDF during active atrial emptying: (3.26±1.51)% vs (3.32±1.55)%, P=0.006; longitudinal HDF pulse during active atrial emptying: (-2.60±1.28)% vs (-2.76±1.30)%, P<0.001]. Conclusions:The ventricular function related HDF parameters obtained from the analysis of mitral valve orifice diameter using single plane and multi plane methods have good consistency, and can be evaluated using relatively simple single plane methods for left ventricular HDF.
