Free-breathing cardiovascular magnetic resonance flow quantification can be an alternative to standard breath-holding approach
Abstract Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) evaluation of valvular heart disease is an important diagnostic tool when echocardiography is inconclusive. Phase contrast flow quantification is usually performed during breath hold (BH), which can be challenging in patients suffering from dyspnea an...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Nature Portfolio
2025-06-01
|
| Series: | Scientific Reports |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-06126-2 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849686308689018880 |
|---|---|
| author | Sinsia A. Gao Odd Bech-Hanssen Christina Polte Kerstin M. Lagerstrand Christian L. Polte |
| author_facet | Sinsia A. Gao Odd Bech-Hanssen Christina Polte Kerstin M. Lagerstrand Christian L. Polte |
| author_sort | Sinsia A. Gao |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) evaluation of valvular heart disease is an important diagnostic tool when echocardiography is inconclusive. Phase contrast flow quantification is usually performed during breath hold (BH), which can be challenging in patients suffering from dyspnea and heart failure. The purpose of the present study is to compare a free-breathing (FB) with the conventional BH approach for flow quantification in the aortic, pulmonary and tricuspid valves in 20 healthy subjects (HS) and 25 patients with tricuspid regurgitation (TR). Aortic (AoFF) and pulmonary forward flow volume (PuFF), and tricuspid inflow volume (TrIF) were evaluated. Mean, standard deviation (SD) and limits of agreement (LoA) were calculated. There were good agreements between phase contrast flow volumes obtained by FB and BH approach. Mean difference ± SD / LoA for AoFF during BH versus FB were 1 ± 6 / -10 to 13 ml. The corresponding for PuFF were 1 ± 6 / -11 to 13 ml, and for TrIF − 3 ± 6 / -15 to 9 ml, respectively. Thus, free-breathing CMR flow acquisition can be an important alternative in the assessment of stroke volume, valvular regurgitant volume and be useful in all patients with difficulties to hold their breath. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-85b026f4dc7a42c4af266ddf9cb2defe |
| institution | DOAJ |
| issn | 2045-2322 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-06-01 |
| publisher | Nature Portfolio |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Scientific Reports |
| spelling | doaj-art-85b026f4dc7a42c4af266ddf9cb2defe2025-08-20T03:22:45ZengNature PortfolioScientific Reports2045-23222025-06-011511910.1038/s41598-025-06126-2Free-breathing cardiovascular magnetic resonance flow quantification can be an alternative to standard breath-holding approachSinsia A. Gao0Odd Bech-Hanssen1Christina Polte2Kerstin M. Lagerstrand3Christian L. Polte4Department of Clinical Physiology, Sahlgrenska University HospitalDepartment of Clinical Physiology, Sahlgrenska University HospitalPediatric Heart Centre Gothenburg, Queen Silvia Childrens Hospital, Sahlgrenska University HospitalDepartment of Diagnostic Radiation Physics, Sahlgrenska University HospitalDepartment of Clinical Physiology, Sahlgrenska University HospitalAbstract Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) evaluation of valvular heart disease is an important diagnostic tool when echocardiography is inconclusive. Phase contrast flow quantification is usually performed during breath hold (BH), which can be challenging in patients suffering from dyspnea and heart failure. The purpose of the present study is to compare a free-breathing (FB) with the conventional BH approach for flow quantification in the aortic, pulmonary and tricuspid valves in 20 healthy subjects (HS) and 25 patients with tricuspid regurgitation (TR). Aortic (AoFF) and pulmonary forward flow volume (PuFF), and tricuspid inflow volume (TrIF) were evaluated. Mean, standard deviation (SD) and limits of agreement (LoA) were calculated. There were good agreements between phase contrast flow volumes obtained by FB and BH approach. Mean difference ± SD / LoA for AoFF during BH versus FB were 1 ± 6 / -10 to 13 ml. The corresponding for PuFF were 1 ± 6 / -11 to 13 ml, and for TrIF − 3 ± 6 / -15 to 9 ml, respectively. Thus, free-breathing CMR flow acquisition can be an important alternative in the assessment of stroke volume, valvular regurgitant volume and be useful in all patients with difficulties to hold their breath.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-06126-2Phase contrast flow quantificationValvular heart diseaseCardiovascular magnetic resonanceBreath-holdFree-breathing |
| spellingShingle | Sinsia A. Gao Odd Bech-Hanssen Christina Polte Kerstin M. Lagerstrand Christian L. Polte Free-breathing cardiovascular magnetic resonance flow quantification can be an alternative to standard breath-holding approach Scientific Reports Phase contrast flow quantification Valvular heart disease Cardiovascular magnetic resonance Breath-hold Free-breathing |
| title | Free-breathing cardiovascular magnetic resonance flow quantification can be an alternative to standard breath-holding approach |
| title_full | Free-breathing cardiovascular magnetic resonance flow quantification can be an alternative to standard breath-holding approach |
| title_fullStr | Free-breathing cardiovascular magnetic resonance flow quantification can be an alternative to standard breath-holding approach |
| title_full_unstemmed | Free-breathing cardiovascular magnetic resonance flow quantification can be an alternative to standard breath-holding approach |
| title_short | Free-breathing cardiovascular magnetic resonance flow quantification can be an alternative to standard breath-holding approach |
| title_sort | free breathing cardiovascular magnetic resonance flow quantification can be an alternative to standard breath holding approach |
| topic | Phase contrast flow quantification Valvular heart disease Cardiovascular magnetic resonance Breath-hold Free-breathing |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-06126-2 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT sinsiaagao freebreathingcardiovascularmagneticresonanceflowquantificationcanbeanalternativetostandardbreathholdingapproach AT oddbechhanssen freebreathingcardiovascularmagneticresonanceflowquantificationcanbeanalternativetostandardbreathholdingapproach AT christinapolte freebreathingcardiovascularmagneticresonanceflowquantificationcanbeanalternativetostandardbreathholdingapproach AT kerstinmlagerstrand freebreathingcardiovascularmagneticresonanceflowquantificationcanbeanalternativetostandardbreathholdingapproach AT christianlpolte freebreathingcardiovascularmagneticresonanceflowquantificationcanbeanalternativetostandardbreathholdingapproach |