There remains a debate whether the ventricular volume within prolapsing mitral valve (MV) leaflets should be included in the left ventricular (LV) end-systolic volume, and therefore factored in LV stroke volume (SV), in cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) assessments. This study aims to compare LV volumes during end-systolic phases, with and without the inclusion of the volume of blood on the left atrial aspect of the atrioventricular groove but still within the MV prolapsing leaflets, against the reference LV SV by four-dimensional flow (4DF). A total of 15 patients with MV prolapse (MVP) were retrospectively enrolled in this study. We compared LV SV with (LV SV_MVP) and without (LV SV_standard) MVP left ventricular doming volume, using 4D flow (LV SV_4DF) as the reference value. Significant differences were observed when comparing LV SV_standard and LV SV_MVP (p < 0.001), and between LV SV_standard and LV SV_4DF (p = 0.02). The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) test demonstrated good repeatability between LV SV_MVP and LV SV_4DF (ICC = 0.86, p < 0.001) but only moderate repeatability between LV SV_standard and LV SV_4DF (ICC = 0.75, p < 0.01). Calculating LV SV by including the MVP left ventricular doming volume has a higher consistency with LV SV derived from the 4DF assessment. In conclusion, LV SV short-axis cine assessment incorporating MVP dooming volume can significantly improve the precision of LV SV assessment compared to the reference 4DF method. Hence, in cases with bi-leaflet MVP, we recommend factoring in MVP dooming into the left ventricular end-systolic volume to improve the accuracy and precision of quantifying mitral regurgitation.

Background: Aortic conduit and reservoir functions can be directly measured by four-dimensional flow (4D flow) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). Methods: Twenty healthy controls (10 young and 10 age-gender-matched old controls) and 20 patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) were recruited. All had 4D flow CMR. Flow was quantified at the ascending and descending aorta levels. In addition, at the ascending aorta level, we quantified systolic flow displacement (FDs) and systolic flow reversal ratio (sFRR). The aortic conduit function was defined as the relative drop in systolic flow from the ascending to the descending aorta (∆Fs). Aortic reservoir function was defined as descending aortic diastolic stroke volume (DAo SV_d). Results: Both ∆Fs (R=0.51, p=0.001) and DAo SV_d (R=−0.68, p=0.001) were significantly associated with ageing. Native T1 (R=0.51, p=0.001) and extracellular volume (R=0.51, p=0.001) showed maximum association with ∆Fs. ∆Fs significantly increased in HFpEF versus age-gender-matched controls (41±8% vs 52±12%, p=0.02). In multiple regression, only ∆Fs and DAo SV_d were independent predictors of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (model R=0.77, p=0.0001). FDs was significantly associated with ∆Fs (R=0.4, p=0.01) and DAo SV_d (R=−0.48, p=0.002), whereas sFRR was mainly associated with DAo SV_d (R=−0.46, p=0.003). Conclusion: Both aortic conduit and reservoir function decline with age and this decline in aortic function is also independently associated with renal functional decline. Ascending aortic turbulent flow signatures are associated with loss of aortic conduit and reservoir functions. Finally, in HFpEF, aortic conduit and reservoir function demonstrate progressive decline. Trials registration number: NCT05114785.