Quantifying Myocardial Blood Flow and Resistance Using 4D-Flow Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Background. Ischaemia with nonobstructive coronary arteries is most commonly caused by coronary microvascular dysfunction but remains difficult to diagnose without invasive testing. Myocardial blood flow (MBF) can be quantified noninvasively on stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) or po...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Hindawi Limited
2023-01-01
|
| Series: | Cardiology Research and Practice |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2023/3875924 |
| _version_ | 1811165513064120320 |
|---|---|
| author | Rebecca C. Gosling Gareth Williams Abdulaziz Al Baraikan Samer Alabed Eylem Levelt Amrit Chowdhary Peter P. Swoboda Ian Halliday D. Rodney Hose Julian P. Gunn John P. Greenwood Sven Plein Andrew J. Swift James M. Wild Pankaj Garg Paul D. Morris |
| author_facet | Rebecca C. Gosling Gareth Williams Abdulaziz Al Baraikan Samer Alabed Eylem Levelt Amrit Chowdhary Peter P. Swoboda Ian Halliday D. Rodney Hose Julian P. Gunn John P. Greenwood Sven Plein Andrew J. Swift James M. Wild Pankaj Garg Paul D. Morris |
| author_sort | Rebecca C. Gosling |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background. Ischaemia with nonobstructive coronary arteries is most commonly caused by coronary microvascular dysfunction but remains difficult to diagnose without invasive testing. Myocardial blood flow (MBF) can be quantified noninvasively on stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) or positron emission tomography but neither is routinely used in clinical practice due to practical and technical constraints. Quantification of coronary sinus (CS) flow may represent a simpler method for CMR MBF quantification. 4D flow CMR offers comprehensive intracardiac and transvalvular flow quantification. However, it is feasibility to quantify MBF remains unknown. Methods. Patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) and healthy volunteers underwent CMR. The CS contours were traced from the 2-chamber view. A reformatted phase contrast plane was generated through the CS, and flow was quantified using 4D flow CMR over the cardiac cycle and normalised for myocardial mass. MBF and resistance (MyoR) was determined in ten healthy volunteers, ten patients with myocardial infarction (MI) without microvascular obstruction (MVO), and ten with known MVO. Results. MBF was quantified in all 30 subjects. MBF was highest in healthy controls (123.8 ± 48.4 mL/min), significantly lower in those with MI (85.7 ± 30.5 mL/min), and even lower in those with MI and MVO (67.9 ± 29.2 mL/min/) (P<0.01 for both differences). Compared with healthy controls, MyoR was higher in those with MI and even higher in those with MI and MVO (0.79 (±0.35) versus 1.10 (±0.50) versus 1.50 (±0.69), P=0.02). Conclusions. MBF and MyoR can be quantified from 4D flow CMR. Resting MBF was reduced in patients with MI and MVO. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-10T15:38:13Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-d9164417667142e3888ceca3915eedf5 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2090-0597 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-10T15:38:13Z |
| publishDate | 2023-01-01 |
| publisher | Hindawi Limited |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Cardiology Research and Practice |
| spelling | doaj.art-d9164417667142e3888ceca3915eedf52023-02-13T01:08:31ZengHindawi LimitedCardiology Research and Practice2090-05972023-01-01202310.1155/2023/3875924Quantifying Myocardial Blood Flow and Resistance Using 4D-Flow Cardiac Magnetic Resonance ImagingRebecca C. Gosling0Gareth Williams1Abdulaziz Al Baraikan2Samer Alabed3Eylem Levelt4Amrit Chowdhary5Peter P. Swoboda6Ian Halliday7D. Rodney Hose8Julian P. Gunn9John P. Greenwood10Sven Plein11Andrew J. Swift12James M. Wild13Pankaj Garg14Paul D. Morris15Department of Infection Immunity and Cardiovascular DiseaseDepartment of Infection Immunity and Cardiovascular DiseaseDepartment of Infection Immunity and Cardiovascular DiseaseDepartment of Infection Immunity and Cardiovascular DiseaseLeeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic MedicineLeeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic MedicineLeeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic MedicineDepartment of Infection Immunity and Cardiovascular DiseaseDepartment of Infection Immunity and Cardiovascular DiseaseDepartment of Infection Immunity and Cardiovascular DiseaseLeeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic MedicineLeeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic MedicineDepartment of Infection Immunity and Cardiovascular DiseaseDepartment of Infection Immunity and Cardiovascular DiseaseNorwich Medical SchoolDepartment of Infection Immunity and Cardiovascular DiseaseBackground. Ischaemia with nonobstructive coronary arteries is most commonly caused by coronary microvascular dysfunction but remains difficult to diagnose without invasive testing. Myocardial blood flow (MBF) can be quantified noninvasively on stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) or positron emission tomography but neither is routinely used in clinical practice due to practical and technical constraints. Quantification of coronary sinus (CS) flow may represent a simpler method for CMR MBF quantification. 4D flow CMR offers comprehensive intracardiac and transvalvular flow quantification. However, it is feasibility to quantify MBF remains unknown. Methods. Patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) and healthy volunteers underwent CMR. The CS contours were traced from the 2-chamber view. A reformatted phase contrast plane was generated through the CS, and flow was quantified using 4D flow CMR over the cardiac cycle and normalised for myocardial mass. MBF and resistance (MyoR) was determined in ten healthy volunteers, ten patients with myocardial infarction (MI) without microvascular obstruction (MVO), and ten with known MVO. Results. MBF was quantified in all 30 subjects. MBF was highest in healthy controls (123.8 ± 48.4 mL/min), significantly lower in those with MI (85.7 ± 30.5 mL/min), and even lower in those with MI and MVO (67.9 ± 29.2 mL/min/) (P<0.01 for both differences). Compared with healthy controls, MyoR was higher in those with MI and even higher in those with MI and MVO (0.79 (±0.35) versus 1.10 (±0.50) versus 1.50 (±0.69), P=0.02). Conclusions. MBF and MyoR can be quantified from 4D flow CMR. Resting MBF was reduced in patients with MI and MVO.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2023/3875924 |
| spellingShingle | Rebecca C. Gosling Gareth Williams Abdulaziz Al Baraikan Samer Alabed Eylem Levelt Amrit Chowdhary Peter P. Swoboda Ian Halliday D. Rodney Hose Julian P. Gunn John P. Greenwood Sven Plein Andrew J. Swift James M. Wild Pankaj Garg Paul D. Morris Quantifying Myocardial Blood Flow and Resistance Using 4D-Flow Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging Cardiology Research and Practice |
| title | Quantifying Myocardial Blood Flow and Resistance Using 4D-Flow Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging |
| title_full | Quantifying Myocardial Blood Flow and Resistance Using 4D-Flow Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging |
| title_fullStr | Quantifying Myocardial Blood Flow and Resistance Using 4D-Flow Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging |
| title_full_unstemmed | Quantifying Myocardial Blood Flow and Resistance Using 4D-Flow Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging |
| title_short | Quantifying Myocardial Blood Flow and Resistance Using 4D-Flow Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging |
| title_sort | quantifying myocardial blood flow and resistance using 4d flow cardiac magnetic resonance imaging |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2023/3875924 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT rebeccacgosling quantifyingmyocardialbloodflowandresistanceusing4dflowcardiacmagneticresonanceimaging AT garethwilliams quantifyingmyocardialbloodflowandresistanceusing4dflowcardiacmagneticresonanceimaging AT abdulazizalbaraikan quantifyingmyocardialbloodflowandresistanceusing4dflowcardiacmagneticresonanceimaging AT sameralabed quantifyingmyocardialbloodflowandresistanceusing4dflowcardiacmagneticresonanceimaging AT eylemlevelt quantifyingmyocardialbloodflowandresistanceusing4dflowcardiacmagneticresonanceimaging AT amritchowdhary quantifyingmyocardialbloodflowandresistanceusing4dflowcardiacmagneticresonanceimaging AT peterpswoboda quantifyingmyocardialbloodflowandresistanceusing4dflowcardiacmagneticresonanceimaging AT ianhalliday quantifyingmyocardialbloodflowandresistanceusing4dflowcardiacmagneticresonanceimaging AT drodneyhose quantifyingmyocardialbloodflowandresistanceusing4dflowcardiacmagneticresonanceimaging AT julianpgunn quantifyingmyocardialbloodflowandresistanceusing4dflowcardiacmagneticresonanceimaging AT johnpgreenwood quantifyingmyocardialbloodflowandresistanceusing4dflowcardiacmagneticresonanceimaging AT svenplein quantifyingmyocardialbloodflowandresistanceusing4dflowcardiacmagneticresonanceimaging AT andrewjswift quantifyingmyocardialbloodflowandresistanceusing4dflowcardiacmagneticresonanceimaging AT jamesmwild quantifyingmyocardialbloodflowandresistanceusing4dflowcardiacmagneticresonanceimaging AT pankajgarg quantifyingmyocardialbloodflowandresistanceusing4dflowcardiacmagneticresonanceimaging AT pauldmorris quantifyingmyocardialbloodflowandresistanceusing4dflowcardiacmagneticresonanceimaging |