4.3 Article

Interval changes in aortic peak velocity and wall shear stress in patients with bicuspid aortic valve disease

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR IMAGING
卷 35, 期 10, 页码 1925-1934

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10554-019-01632-7

关键词

Bicuspid aortic valve; Flow imaging; 4D flow MRI; Aortic disease; Follow-up study

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01HL115828, R01HL133504]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is associated with abnormal valve-mediated hemodynamics including high velocity jets and elevated wall shear stress (WSS). This study investigated interval changes in flow and WSS in a multi-year follow-up study. This cross-sectional study included n = 44 patients with BAV (age = 44.9 +/- 12 years), n = 17 patients with tricuspid aortic valve and thoracic aortic dilatation (TAV with dilation, age = 54.6 +/- 16.5 years), and n = 9 healthy controls (age = 49.3 +/- 14.7 years) underwent baseline and serial aortic 4D flow MRI (follow-up duration: BAV: 2.6 +/- 0.7 years, TAV with dilation: 2.7 +/- 0.5 years, controls: 1.1 +/- 0.5 years). Data analysis included quantification of aortic dimensions, peak systolic velocities, as well as regional 3D WSS in the ascending aorta. At baseline, BAV patients demonstrated uniformly elevated peak velocity and WSS compared to TAV with dilation and control groups (peak velocity 2.2 m/s vs. 1.6 m/s vs. 1.5 m/s, p < 0.004; WSS: 0.74 Pa vs. 0.45 Pa vs. 0.55 Pa, p < 0.001). For BAV, peak velocity increased from baseline to follow up (2.2 +/- 0.8 to 2.3 +/- 0.9 m/s, p < 0.001) while WSS decreased (0.74 +/- 0.22 to 0.65 +/- 0.21 Pa, p < 0.001). Aortic growth was minimal for both BAV (0.05 cm/year) and TAV with dilation (0.03-0.04 cm/year) patients. For BAV patients, increase of ascending aorta peak velocities indicated worsening of valve function at follow-up. Compared to TAV with dilation patients, BAV patients demonstrated a reduction in WSS which may indicate a compensatory mechanism to reduce elevated WSS forces by aortic remodeling.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据