Transthoracic Vector Flow Imaging in Pediatric Patients with Valvular Stenosis – A Proof of Concept Study

Abstract

Purpose Continuous wave Doppler ultrasound is routinely used to detect cardiac valve stenoses. Vector flow imaging (VFI) is an angle-independent real-time ultrasound method that can quantify flow complexity. We aimed to evaluate if quantification of flow complexity could reliably assess valvular stenosis in pediatric patients.

Materials and Methods Nine pediatric patients with echocardiographically confirmed valvular stenosis were included in the study. VFI and Doppler measurements were compared with transvalvular peak-to-peak pressure differences derived from invasive endovascular catheterization.

Results Vector concentration correlated with the catheter measurements before intervention after exclusion of one outlier (r=−0.83, p=0.01), whereas the Doppler method did not (r=0.49, p=0.22). The change in vector concentration after intervention correlated strongly with the change in the measured catheter pressure difference (r=−0.86, p=0.003), while Doppler showed a tendency for a moderate correlation (r=0.63, p=0.07).

Conclusion Transthoracic flow complexity quantification calculated from VFI data is feasible and may be useful for assessing valvular stenosis severity in pediatric patients.

Key words

catheters - echocardiography - vector flow imaging, valvular stenosis, pressure gradient

Publication History

Received: 17 December 2020

Accepted after revision: 05 September 2021

Article published online:
17 November 2021

• References

• 1 Liu Y, Chen S, Zühlke L. et al. Global birth prevalence of congenital heart defects 1970–2017: Updated systematic review and meta-analysis of 260 studies. Int J Epidemiol 2019; 48: 455-463 DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyz009.
• 2 Singh Y. Echocardiographic Evaluation of Hemodynamics in Neonates and Children. Front Pediatr 2017; 5: 201 DOI: 10.3389/fped.2017.00201.
• 3 Yoganathan AP, Cape EG, Sung HW. et al. Review of hydrodynamic principles for the cardiologist: applications to the study of blood flow and jets by imaging techniques. J Am Coll Cardiol 1988; 12: 1344-1353
• 4 Singh GK. Congenital Aortic Valve Stenosis. Children (Basel) 2019; 6 DOI: 10.3390/children6050069.
• 5 Ringle A, Castel A-L, Le Goffic C. et al. Prospective assessment of the frequency of low gradient severe aortic stenosis with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction: Critical impact of aortic flow misalignment and pressure recovery phenomenon. Arch Cardiovasc Dis 2018; 111: 518-527 DOI: 10.1016/j.acvd.2017.11.004.
• 6 Jensen JA, Munk P. A new method for estimation of velocity vectors. IEEE T Ultrason Ferr 1998; 45: 837-851 DOI: 10.1109/58.677749.
• 7 Saris AECM, Hansen HHG, Fekkes S. et al. In Vivo Blood Velocity Vector Imaging Using Adaptive Velocity Compounding in the Carotid Artery Bifurcation. Ultrasound Med Biol 2019; 45: 1691-1707 DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2019.03.008.
• 8 Pedersen MM, Pihl MJ, Haugaard P. et al. Novel flow quantification of the carotid bulb and the common carotid artery with vector flow ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 2014; 40: 2700-2706 DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2014.06.001.
• 9 Collins RT, Laughlin ME, Lang SM. et al. Real-time transthoracic vector flow imaging of the heart in pediatric patients. Prog Pediatr Cardiol 2019; 53: 28-36 DOI: 10.1016/j.ppedcard.2019.02.003.
• 10 Hansen KL, Juul K, Møller-Sørensen H. et al. Pediatric Transthoracic Cardiac Vector Flow Imaging – A Preliminary Pictorial Study. Ultrasound International Open 2019; 5: E20-E26 DOI: 10.1055/a-0656-5430.
• 11 Moshavegh R, Martins B, Hansen K. et al. Hybrid segmentation of vessels and automated flow measures in in-vivo ultrasound imaging. Proc. IEEE Ultrason.Symp. 2016; 1-4 DOI: 10.1109/ULTSYM.2016.7728656.
• 12 Hansen KL, Hansen PM, Ewertsen C. et al. Vector Flow Imaging Compared with Digital Subtraction Angiography for Stenosis Assessment in the Superficial Femoral Artery – A Study of Vector Concentration, Velocity Ratio and Stenosis Degree Percentage. Ultrasound International Open 2019; 5: E53-E59 DOI: 10.1055/a-0853-2002.
• 13 Syamasundar Rao P. Balloon Valvuloplasty and Angioplasty in Pediatric Practice. Pediatr Therapeut 2011; 01 DOI: 10.4172/2161-0665.1000e103.
• 14 Brandt AH, Nguyen T-Q, Gutte H. et al. Carotid Stenosis Assessment with Vector Concentration before and after Stenting. Diagnostics 2020; 10: 420 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics10060420.
• 15 Feltes TF, Bacha E, Beekman RH. et al. Indications for Cardiac Catheterization and Intervention in Pediatric Cardiac Disease. Circulation 2011; 123: 2607-2652 DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0b013e31821b1f10.
• 16 Schneuer FJ, Bentley JP, Davidson AJ. et al. The impact of general anesthesia on child development and school performance: a population-based study. Pediatric Anesthesia 2018; 28: 528-536 DOI: 10.1111/pan.13390.
• 17 Baumgartner H, Stefenelli T, Niederberger J. et al. „Overestimation“ of catheter gradients by Doppler ultrasound in patients with aortic stenosis: a predictable manifestation of pressure recovery. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999; 33: 1655-1661
• 18 VanAuker MD, Hla A, Meisner JS. et al. Simultaneous Doppler/catheter measurements of pressure gradients in aortic valve disease: a correction to the Bernoulli equation based on velocity decay in the stenotic jet. J Heart Valve Dis 2000; 9: 291-298
• 19 Yamazawa H. Accuracy of the Doppler-derived pressure gradient in pediatric patients with aortic valvular stenosis: is the correction for pressure recovery necessary?. Hokkaido Igaku Zasshi 2010; 85: 225-231
• 20 Reeder GS, Currie PJ, Hagler DJ. et al. Use of Doppler Techniques (Continuous-Wave, Pulsed-Wave, and Color Flow Imaging) in the Noninvasive Hemodynamic Assessment of Congenital Heart Disease. Mayo Clin Proc 1986; 61: 725-744 DOI: 10.1016/S0025-6196(12)62774-8.
• 21 Pihkala J, Nykanen D, Freedom RM. et al. Interventional cardiac catheterization. Pediatr Clin N Am 1999; 46: 441-464 DOI: 10.1016/S0031-3955(05)70128-0.
• 22 Nishimura RA, Carabello BA. Hemodynamics in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory of the 21st Century. Circulation 2012; 125: 2138-2150 DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.060319.
• 23 Terslev L, Diamantopoulos AP, Døhn UM. et al. Settings and artefacts relevant for Doppler ultrasound in large vessel vasculitis. Arthritis Res Ther 2017; 19: 1-10 DOI: 10.1186/s13075-017-1374-1.
• 24 Nguyen T-Q, Traberg MS, Olesen JB. et al. Flow Complexity Estimation in Dysfunctional Arteriovenous Dialysis Fistulas using Vector Flow Imaging. Ultrasound Med Biol 2020; 46: 2493-2504 DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2020.05.021.
• 25 Adriaans BP, Westenberg JJM, van Cauteren YJM. et al. Clinical assessment of aortic valve stenosis: Comparison between 4D flow MRI and transthoracic echocardiography. J Magn Reson Imaging 2020; 51: 472-480 DOI: 10.1002/jmri.26847.
• 26 Garcia J, Barker AJ, Markl M. The Role of Imaging of Flow Patterns by 4D Flow MRI in Aortic Stenosis. JACC Cardiovasc Imag 2019; 12: 252-266 DOI: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2018.10.034.
• 27 Niederberger J, Schima H, Maurer G. et al. Importance of Pressure Recovery for the Assessment of Aortic Stenosis by Doppler Ultrasound. Circulation 1996; 94: 1934-1940 DOI: 10.1161/01.CIR.94.8.1934.
• 28 Hansen KL, Møller-Sørensen H, Kjaergaard J. et al. Intra-Operative Vector Flow Imaging Using Ultrasound of the Ascending Aorta among 40 Patients with Normal, Stenotic and Replaced Aortic Valves. Ultrasound Med Biol 2016; 42: 2414-2422 DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2016.06.009.
• 29 Brandt AH, Hansen KL, Ewertsen C. et al. A Comparison Study of Vector Velocity, Spectral Doppler and Magnetic Resonance of Blood Flow in the Common Carotid Artery. Ultrasound Med Biol 2018; 44: 1751-1761 DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2018.05.002.
• 30 Holbek S, Hansen KL, Bouzari H. et al. Common Carotid Artery Flow Measured by 3-D Ultrasonic Vector Flow Imaging and Validated with Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Ultrasound Med Biol 2017; 43: 2213-2220 DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2017.06.007.