{"database":"biostudies-literature","file_versions":[],"scores":null,"additional":{"submitter":["Grafton-Clarke C"],"funding":["Wellcome Trust"],"pagination":["e003081"],"full_dataset_link":["https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC12060880"],"repository":["biostudies-literature"],"omics_type":["Unknown"],"volume":["12(1)"],"pubmed_abstract":["<h4>Aims</h4>Four-dimensional flow cardiovascular MRI (4D flow CMR) has emerged as a promising technique for assessing aortic stenosis (AS). This study aimed to evaluate the agreement between 4D flow CMR and transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) in estimating peak aortic valve (AV) velocities (V<sub>Peak</sub>), grading AS severity and predicting AV intervention in a real-world setting.<h4>Methods</h4>Participants from the PREFER-CMR registry who had consecutive TTE and 4D flow CMR were included. AS severity was graded using established protocols using three echocardiographic parameters (V<sub>Peak</sub>, AV area and mean pressure gradient) and CMR-derived V<sub>Peak</sub>.<h4>Results</h4>The study recruited 30 patients (mean age 75.4 years, 67% male), with 17 undergoing AV intervention. Continuous wave Doppler (CWD) V<sub>Peak</sub> (3.4 vs 2.6 m/s, p=0.0025) and 4D flow V<sub>Peak</sub> (4.2 vs 2.7 m/s, p<0.0001) were significantly higher in patients going for AV intervention. V<sub>Peak</sub> by CWD was significantly lower to 4D flow with a bias of -0.5 (p=0.01) and a correlation of (R=0.55, p=0.002). The Cox-regression analysis reveals that 4D flow V<sub>Peak</sub> significantly predicts AV intervention (HR=2.51, p<0.01), while CWD V<sub>Peak</sub> (HR=0.54, p=0.76) shows no significant association; overall model fit is significant (χ²=9.5, p=0.02).<h4>Conclusion</h4>4D flow CMR-derived V<sub>Peak</sub> assessment is superior to echocardiographic CWD assessment for predicting timing of AV intervention.<h4>Trial registration number</h4>NCT05114785."],"journal":["Open heart"],"pubmed_title":["Four-dimensional flow provides incremental diagnostic value over echocardiography in aortic stenosis."],"pmcid":["PMC12060880"],"funding_grant_id":["205188/Z/16/Z","220703/Z/20/Z"],"pubmed_authors":["Thampi K","Mehmood Z","Tsampasian V","Kasmai B","Curtin J","Yashoda GK","Broncano J","Li R","Matthews G","Garg P","Hall R","Nair S","Swoboda P","Swift AJ","Vassiliou VS","Geest RJV","Assadi H","Staff L","Grafton-Clarke C","Ricci F","Alabed S","Sun J","Hewson D"],"additional_accession":[]},"is_claimable":false,"name":"Four-dimensional flow provides incremental diagnostic value over echocardiography in aortic stenosis.","description":"<h4>Aims</h4>Four-dimensional flow cardiovascular MRI (4D flow CMR) has emerged as a promising technique for assessing aortic stenosis (AS). This study aimed to evaluate the agreement between 4D flow CMR and transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) in estimating peak aortic valve (AV) velocities (V<sub>Peak</sub>), grading AS severity and predicting AV intervention in a real-world setting.<h4>Methods</h4>Participants from the PREFER-CMR registry who had consecutive TTE and 4D flow CMR were included. AS severity was graded using established protocols using three echocardiographic parameters (V<sub>Peak</sub>, AV area and mean pressure gradient) and CMR-derived V<sub>Peak</sub>.<h4>Results</h4>The study recruited 30 patients (mean age 75.4 years, 67% male), with 17 undergoing AV intervention. Continuous wave Doppler (CWD) V<sub>Peak</sub> (3.4 vs 2.6 m/s, p=0.0025) and 4D flow V<sub>Peak</sub> (4.2 vs 2.7 m/s, p<0.0001) were significantly higher in patients going for AV intervention. V<sub>Peak</sub> by CWD was significantly lower to 4D flow with a bias of -0.5 (p=0.01) and a correlation of (R=0.55, p=0.002). The Cox-regression analysis reveals that 4D flow V<sub>Peak</sub> significantly predicts AV intervention (HR=2.51, p<0.01), while CWD V<sub>Peak</sub> (HR=0.54, p=0.76) shows no significant association; overall model fit is significant (χ²=9.5, p=0.02).<h4>Conclusion</h4>4D flow CMR-derived V<sub>Peak</sub> assessment is superior to echocardiographic CWD assessment for predicting timing of AV intervention.<h4>Trial registration number</h4>NCT05114785.","dates":{"release":"2025-01-01T00:00:00Z","publication":"2025 May","modification":"2026-06-02T21:01:32.278Z","creation":"2026-04-20T03:14:20.475Z"},"accession":"S-EPMC12060880","cross_references":{"pubmed":["40340893"],"doi":["10.1136/openhrt-2024-003081"]}}