Keywords:
Embolism / Thrombosis, Computer Applications-3D, MR, Cardiac
Authors:
E. Glazkova, V. Makarenko, S. Alexandrova, M. Shlyappo; moscow/RU
DOI:
10.1594/ecr2018/C-2843
Results
Quantification of the PVs flow.
32 PVs in the CG and 27 of PVs in AFG were analyzed.
Hemodynamic parameters of the PVs flow except for the Average flow rate decreased significantly in AFG.
(Tab.
1)
Table 1.
Quantification of the PVs flow in controls and AF patient.
|
Average volume flow rate (ml/s)
|
Peak volume flow rate (ml/s)
|
Forward volume (ml)
|
Peak velocity
(сm/s)
|
CG
(n=32)
|
19,40
(15,70; 24,40)
|
40,86
(32,39; 51,02)
|
18,24
(13,73; 20,97)
|
41,38
(36,10; 53,73)
|
AFG
(n=27)
|
18,00
(10,00; 23,87)
|
30,00
(18,60; 42,00)
|
12,75
(8,30; 18,59)
|
35,76
(23,33; 44,00)
|
p
|
0,2834
|
0,0212
|
0,0139
|
0,0020
|
Analysis PVs velocity flow curve.
We registered a high synchronicity between 4 PVs flow curves in CG and a significant desynchronization in AFG,
that were manifested in the delay or absence of S and D peaks in one or more veins (71% of patients vs.
12% in CG).
(Fig.5)
Analysis LA vortex.
LA vortical flow was observed rarely in AFG as compared to CG.
In AFG vortexes was detected in reservoir phase in 3 patients vs.
8 in CG (p = 0.04),
in conduit phase in 2 vs.
8 in the CG (p = 0.001) and in pumping phase only 4 patients CG had vortex (p = 0.003).
(Tab.2)
Table 2.
The presence of vortex in the functional phases of the LA cycle.
|
Reservoir phase
|
Conduit phase
|
Pumping phase
|
CG (n=8)
|
8 (100%)
|
8 (100%)
|
4 (50%)
|
AFG (n=7)
|
3 (43%)
|
2 (28%)
|
0
|
p
|
0,0401
|
0,0011
|
0,032
|
Analysis PVs contribution to the vortex.
Inflow from the left PVs was the main contributor to the vortical flow in both groups.
Significant difference in the right PVs flow was shown: in AFG income from the right PVs demonstrated more linear blood flow in the LA and was not involved in the vortex formation (100% patients vs.
25% in CG).
(Fig.6)