Validation of four-dimensional flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance for aortic stenosis assessment

Gareth T. Archer, Alaa Elhawaz, Natasha Barker, Benjamin Fidock, Alexander Rothman, R. J. van der Geest, Rod Hose, Norman Briffa, Ian R. Hall, Ever Grech, Malenka Bissell, Abdallah Al-Mohammad, Thomas A. Treibel, Andrew J. Swift, James M. Wild, Pankaj Garg

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

28 Citations (Scopus)
3 Downloads (Pure)


The management of patients with aortic stenosis (AS) crucially depends on accurate diagnosis. The main aim of this study were to validate the four-dimensional flow (4D flow) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) methods for AS assessment. Eighteen patients with clinically severe AS were recruited. All patients had pre-valve intervention 6MWT, echocardiography and CMR with 4D flow. Of these, ten patients had a surgical valve replacement, and eight patients had successful transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). TAVI patients had invasive pressure gradient assessments. A repeat assessment was performed at 3–4 months to assess the remodelling response. The peak pressure gradient by 4D flow was comparable to an invasive pressure gradient (54 ± 26 mmHG vs 50 ± 34 mmHg, P = 0.67). However, Doppler yielded significantly higher pressure gradient compared to invasive assessment (61 ± 32 mmHG vs 50 ± 34 mmHg, P = 0.0002). 6MWT was associated with 4D flow CMR derived pressure gradient (r = −0.45, P = 0.01) and EOA (r = 0.54, P < 0.01) but only with Doppler EOA (r = 0.45, P = 0.01). Left ventricular mass regression was better associated with 4D flow derived pressure gradient change (r = 0.64, P = 0.04). 4D flow CMR offers an alternative method for non-invasive assessment of AS. In addition, 4D flow derived valve metrics have a superior association to prognostically relevant 6MWT and LV mass regression than echocardiography.
Original languageEnglish
Article number10569
JournalScientific Reports
Publication statusPublished - 29 Jun 2020

Cite this