4.7 Article

Validation and Reproducibility of Aortic Pulse Wave Velocity as Assessed With Velocity-Encoded MRI

Journal

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
Volume 30, Issue 3, Pages 521-526

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.21886

Keywords

pulse wave velocity; magnetic resonance imaging; aorta; elasticity; coronary artery disease

Funding

  1. Netherlands Heart Foundation [NHS/2006B138]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To validate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) assessment of aortic pulse wave velocity (PWVMRI) with PWV determined from invasive intra-aortic pressure measurements (PWVINV) and to test the reproducibility of the measurement by MRI. Materials and Methods: PWVMRI Was compared with PWVINV in 18 nonconsecutive patients scheduled for catheterization for suspected coronary artery disease. Reproducibility of PWVMRI was tested in 10 healthy volunteers who underwent repeated measurement of PWVMRI at a single occasion. Velocity-encoded MRI was performed on all participants to assess PWVMRI in the total aorta (Ao(total)), the proximal aorta (Ao(prox)), and the distal aorta (Ao(dist)). Results: The results are expressed as mean +/- SD, Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC), and intraclass correlation (ICC). Good agreement between PWVMRI and PWVINV was found for Ao(total) (6.5 +/- 1.1 m/s vs. 6.1 +/- 0.8 m/s; PCC = 0.53), Ao(prox) (6.5 +/- 1.3 m/s vs. 6.2 +/- 1.1 m/s: PCC = 0.69) and for Ao(dist) (6.9 +/- 1.1 m/s vs. 6.1 +/- 1.0 m/s; PCC = 0.71) Reproducibility Of PWVMRI was high for Aototal (4.3 +/- 0.5 m/s vs. 4.6 +/- 0.7 m/s; ICC = 0.90, P < 0.01), Ao(prox) (4.3 +/- 0.9 m/s vs. 4.7 +/- 1.0 m/s; ICC = 0.87, P < 0.01), and Ao(dist) (4.3 +/- 0.6 m/s vs. 4.4 +/- 0.8 m/s: ICC = 0.92, P < 0.01). Conclusion: MRI assessment of aortic pulse wave velocity shows good agreement with invasive pressure measurements and can be determined with high reproducibility.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available