Background: Pressure measurement in total cavopulmonary connection (TCPC) patients is a domain of cardiaccatheterization. 4D velocity encoded cardiovascular magnetic resonance (4D–flow MRI) offers an alternative fora...Background: Pressure measurement in total cavopulmonary connection (TCPC) patients is a domain of cardiaccatheterization. 4D velocity encoded cardiovascular magnetic resonance (4D–flow MRI) offers an alternative forassessment of even minor pressure differences. The scope of this study was to measure even minor pressure differencesin the anastomosis of TCPC patients, who are clinically uncompromised. Methods: Twenty-four patients(median 15 years [8;34]) with TCPC were studied prospectively by 4D-flow MRI. Pressure differences betweensuperior vena cava (SVC) and extracardiac conduit (C) to both right pulmonary artery (RPA) and left pulmonaryartery (LPA) were assessed. Small fluid obstructions as vortices within the anastomosis were detected by flowpathlines from 4D-flow MRI. In two patients pressure differences were calculated also by computational flowdynamics (CFD) as a plausibility check for the order of magnitude. Results: Median values of pressure differencesin the anastomosis between SVC and RPA were 0.63 (0.21–2.1) mmHg, between C and RPA 0.67 (0.3–2.2)mmHg, between SVC and LPA 0.8 (0.3–2.4) mmHg and between C and LPA 0.7 (0.2–1.9) mmHg. Patients withpotential flow obstruction (stents, occluder, vortices) had significantly higher gradients at the anastomosis (p <0.05) than patients without potential obstructions, although the absolute values were small. CFD- and measurement-based pressure difference showed good agreement. Conclusion: 4D-flow MRI is able to detect minor pressuredifferences within the Fontan circuit even in patients with apparently satisfactory TCPC. Slightly higherpressure differences are due to the presence of small flow obstruction.展开更多
基金This work was supported by Deutsche Herzstiftung e.V.
文摘Background: Pressure measurement in total cavopulmonary connection (TCPC) patients is a domain of cardiaccatheterization. 4D velocity encoded cardiovascular magnetic resonance (4D–flow MRI) offers an alternative forassessment of even minor pressure differences. The scope of this study was to measure even minor pressure differencesin the anastomosis of TCPC patients, who are clinically uncompromised. Methods: Twenty-four patients(median 15 years [8;34]) with TCPC were studied prospectively by 4D-flow MRI. Pressure differences betweensuperior vena cava (SVC) and extracardiac conduit (C) to both right pulmonary artery (RPA) and left pulmonaryartery (LPA) were assessed. Small fluid obstructions as vortices within the anastomosis were detected by flowpathlines from 4D-flow MRI. In two patients pressure differences were calculated also by computational flowdynamics (CFD) as a plausibility check for the order of magnitude. Results: Median values of pressure differencesin the anastomosis between SVC and RPA were 0.63 (0.21–2.1) mmHg, between C and RPA 0.67 (0.3–2.2)mmHg, between SVC and LPA 0.8 (0.3–2.4) mmHg and between C and LPA 0.7 (0.2–1.9) mmHg. Patients withpotential flow obstruction (stents, occluder, vortices) had significantly higher gradients at the anastomosis (p <0.05) than patients without potential obstructions, although the absolute values were small. CFD- and measurement-based pressure difference showed good agreement. Conclusion: 4D-flow MRI is able to detect minor pressuredifferences within the Fontan circuit even in patients with apparently satisfactory TCPC. Slightly higherpressure differences are due to the presence of small flow obstruction.
