Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36717885›Full record

ArticleJournal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance2023

Non-invasive cardiovascular magnetic resonance assessment of pressure recovery distance after aortic valve stenosis.

Joao Filipe Fernandes, Harminder Gill, Amanda Nio, Alessandro Faraci, Valeria Galli, David Marlevi, Malenka Bissell, Hojin Ha, Ronak Rajani, Peter Mortier and 5 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05818722 (Multicentre Retrospective Analysis of the Characteristics and the Long-term Prognosis of the Bicuspid Aortic Valve), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT05818722 unknown statusnot on this map

Multicentre Retrospective Analysis of the Characteristics and the Long-term Prognosis of the Bicuspid Aortic Valve

TypeobservationalSponsorThe Affiliated Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital of Nanjing University Medical SchoolRan2022 to 2025Enrolled1,000ConditionsBicuspid Aortic Valve
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Aortic flow is abnormal in HFpEF.Wellcome open research · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Joao Filipe FernandesSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK. jf.fernandes@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-4621-1837
Harminder GillSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Amanda NioSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Alessandro FaraciSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Valeria GalliFEops NV, Ghent, Belgium.
David MarleviDepartment of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden.
Malenka BissellDepartment of Biomedical Imaging Science, Leeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Hojin HaDepartment of Mechanical and Biomedical Engineering, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon, Korea.
Ronak RajaniSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Peter MortierFEops NV, Ghent, Belgium.
Saul G MyersonDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Radcliffe Department of Medicine, Oxford Centre for Clinical Magnetic Resonance Research, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Petter DyverfeldtDepartment of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Tino EbbersDepartment of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
David A NordslettenSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Pablo LamataSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
King's College London · GBLinköping University · SEKangwon National University · KRKarolinska Institutet · SEUniversity of Leeds · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

British Heart Foundation TG/17/3/33406Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council EP/R003866/1FP7 People: Marie-Curie Actions 310612H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions 764738National Research Foundation of Korea 2020R1A4A1019475National Research Foundation of Korea 2021R1I1A3040346Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation 20210441Swedish Research Council Grant 2013-6077Swedish Research Council Grant 2018-04454Swedish Research Council Grant 2021-03716Wellcome/EPSRC Centre for Medical Engineering at King's College London WT 203148/Z/16/ZWellcome Trust 203148/Z/16/ZWellcome Trust 209450/Z/17/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDecisions in the management of aortic stenosis are based on the peak pressure drop, captured by Doppler echocardiography, whereas gold standard catheterization measurements assess the net pressure drop but are limited by associated risks. The relationship between these two measurements, peak and net pressure drop, is dictated by the pressure recovery along the ascending aorta which is mainly caused by turbulence energy dissipation. Currently, pressure recovery is considered to occur within the first 40-50 mm distally from the aortic valve, albeit there is inconsistency across interventionist centers on where/how to position the catheter to capture the net pressure drop.

methodsWe developed a non-invasive method to assess the pressure recovery distance based on blood flow momentum via 4D Flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). Multi-center acquisitions included physical flow phantoms with different stenotic valve configurations to validate this method, first against reference measurements and then against turbulent energy dissipation (respectively n = 8 and n = 28 acquisitions) and to investigate the relationship between peak and net pressure drops. Finally, we explored the potential errors of cardiac catheterisation pressure recordings as a result of neglecting the pressure recovery distance in a clinical bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) cohort of n = 32 patients.

resultsIn-vitro assessment of pressure recovery distance based on flow momentum achieved an average error of 1.8 ± 8.4 mm when compared to reference pressure sensors in the first phantom workbench. The momentum pressure recovery distance and the turbulent energy dissipation distance showed no statistical difference (mean difference of 2.8 ± 5.4 mm, R

conclusionThe non-invasive assessment of the distance to pressure recovery is possible by tracking momentum via 4D Flow CMR. Recovery is not always complete at the ascending aorta, and catheterised recordings will overestimate the net pressure drop in those situations. There is a need to re-evaluate the methods that characterise the haemodynamic burden caused by aortic stenosis as currently clinically accepted pressure recovery distance is an underestimation.

Indexed as

Aortic Valve StenosisBicuspid Aortic Valve DiseaseAortic ValveBlood Flow VelocityHemodynamicsHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMagnetic Resonance SpectroscopyPredictive Value of Tests4D Flow MRIAortic stenosisFlow momentumNon-invasive pressure dropPressure recoveryTurbulence

Identifiers

PMID36717885
PMCPMC9885657
OpenAlexW4318476933

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.