Left ventricular flow propagation velocity measurement: Is it cast in stone?

Abstract

This study aims to investigate the measurement of left ventricular flow propagation velocity, V _p, using phase contrast magnetic resonance imaging and to assess the discrepancies resulting from inflow jet direction and individual left ventricular size. Three V _p measuring techniques, namely non-adaptive (NA), adaptive positions (AP) and adaptive vectors (AV) method, were suggested and compared. We performed the comparison on nine healthy volunteers and nine post-infarct patients at four measurement positions, respectively, at one-third, one-half, two-thirds and the conventional 4 cm distances from the mitral valve leaflet into the left ventricle. We found that the V _p measurement was affected by both the inflow jet direction and measurement positions. Both NA and AP methods overestimated V _p, especially in dilated left ventricles, while the AV method showed the strongest correlation with the isovolumic relaxation myocardial strain rate (r = 0.53, p < 0.05). Using the AV method, notable difference in mean V _p was also observed between healthy volunteers and post-infarct patients at positions of: one-half (81 ± 31 vs. 58 ± 25 cm/s), two-thirds (89 ± 32 vs. 45 ± 15 cm/s) and 4 cm (98 ± 23 vs. 47 ± 13 cm/s) distances. The use of AV method and measurement position at one-half distance was found to be the most suitable method for assessing diastolic dysfunction given varying left ventricular sizes and inflow jet directions.

Keywords: Diastolic dysfunction; Flow propagation velocity; LV relaxation; Magnetic resonance; V p.