Loading…

Assessment of left ventricular hemodynamic forces in healthy subjects and patients with dilated cardiomyopathy using 4D flow MRI

We hypothesized that the direction of global left ventricular (LV) hemodynamic forces during diastolic filling are concordant with the main flow axes in normal LVs, but that this pattern would be altered in dilated and dysfunctional LVs. Therefore, we aimed to assess the LV hemodynamic filling force...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Physiological reports 2016-02, Vol.4 (3), p.e12685-n/a
Main Authors: Eriksson, Jonatan, Bolger, Ann F., Ebbers, Tino, Carlhäll, Carl‐Johan
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:We hypothesized that the direction of global left ventricular (LV) hemodynamic forces during diastolic filling are concordant with the main flow axes in normal LVs, but that this pattern would be altered in dilated and dysfunctional LVs. Therefore, we aimed to assess the LV hemodynamic filling forces in a group of healthy subjects and compare them to the results from a group of patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). Ten healthy subjects and 10 DCM patients were enrolled. Morphological short‐ (SAx) and long‐axis (LAx) images and 4D flow MRI data were acquired at 1.5T. The LV pressure gradients were computed from the 4D flow data using the Navier–Stokes equations. By integrating the pressure gradients over the LV volume at each time frame, the magnitude and direction of the global hemodynamic force was calculated over the cardiac cycle. The hemodynamic forces acting in the SAx‐ and LAx‐directions were used to calculate the “SAx‐max/LAx‐max”‐ratio for the early (E‐wave) and late (A‐wave) diastolic filling. In the LAx‐plane, the temporal progression of the hemodynamic force followed a consistent pattern in the healthy subjects. The “SAx‐max/LAx‐max”‐ratio was significantly larger at both E‐wave (0.53 ± 0.15 vs. 0.23 ± 0.12, P 
ISSN:2051-817X
2051-817X
DOI:10.14814/phy2.12685