Assessment of Beat‐To‐Beat Variability in Left Atrial Hemodynamics Using Real Time Phase Contrast MRI in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation

Abstract

Background Hemodynamic assessment of left atrial (LA) flow using phase contrast MRI provides insight into thromboembolic risk in atrial fibrillation (AF). However, conventional flow imaging techniques are averaged over many heartbeats. Purpose To evaluate beat‐to‐beat variability and LA hemodynamics in patients with AF using real time phase contrast (RTPC) MRI. Study Type Prospective. Subjects Thirty‐five patients with history of AF (68 ± 10 years, nine female), 10 healthy controls (57 ± 19 years, four female). Field Strength/Sequence 5T, 2D RTPC with through‐plane velocity‐encoded gradient echo sequence and 4D flow MRI with three‐directional velocity‐encoded gradient echo sequence. Assessment RTPC was continuously acquired for a mid‐LA slice in all subjects. 4D flow data were interpolated at the RTPC location and normally projected for comparison with RTPC. RR intervals extracted from RTPC were used to calculate heart rate variability (HRV = interquartile range over median × 100%). Patients were classified into low (<9.7%) and high (>9.7%) HRV groups. LA peak/mean velocity and stasis (%velocities < 5.8 cm/sec) were calculated from segmented 2D images. Variability in RTPC flow metrics was quantified by coefficient of variation (CV) over all cycles. Statistical Tests Pearson's correlation coefficient (r), Bland–Altman analysis, Kruskal–Wallis test. A P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results RTPC and 4D flow measurements were strongly/significantly correlated for all hemodynamic parameters (R2 = 0.75–0.83) in controls. Twenty‐four patients had low HRV (mean = 4 ± 2%) and 11 patients had high HRV (27 ± 9%). In patients, increased HRV was significantly correlated with CV of peak velocity (r = 0.67), mean velocity (r = 0.51), and stasis (r = 0.41). A stepwise decrease in peak/mean velocity and increase in stasis was observed when comparing controls vs. low HRV vs. high HRV groups. Mean velocity and stasis differences were significant for control vs. high HRV groups. Conclusions RTPC may be suitable for assessing the impact of HRV on hemodynamics and provide insight for AF management in highly arrhythmic patients. Evidence Level 1 Technical Efficacy Stage 2

The future of CMR: All-in-one vs. real-time CMR (Part 2)

“…Real-time phase contrast enables CMR to measure flow in patients with arrhythmia or those who cannot hold their breath [82] , [83] . It also offers the opportunity to monitor response to stress, exercise and other physiologic provocations.…”