Barker, Alex J.

Abstract This International Consensus Classification and Nomenclature for the congenital bicuspid aortic valve condition recognizes 3 types of bicuspid valves: 1. The fused type (right-left cusp fusion, right-non-coronary cusp fusion and left-non-coronary cusp fusion phenotypes); 2. The 2-sinus type (latero-lateral and antero-posterior phenotypes); and 3. The partial-fusion (forme fruste) type. The presence of raphe and the symmetry of the fused type phenotypes are critical aspects to describe. The International Consensus also recognizes 3 types of bicuspid valve-associated aortopathy: 1. The ascending phenotype; 2. The root phenotype; and 3. Extended phenotypes.

Abstract This International evidence-based nomenclature and classification consensus on the congenital bicuspid aortic valve and its aortopathy recognizes 3 types of bicuspid aortic valve: 1. Fused type, with 3 phenotypes: right-left cusp fusion, right-non cusp fusion and left-non cusp fusion; 2. 2-sinus type with 2 phenotypes: Latero-lateral and antero-posterior; and 3. Partial-fusion or forme fruste. This consensus recognizes 3 bicuspid-aortopathy types: 1. Ascending phenotype; root phenotype; and 3. extended phenotypes.

BackgroundSystematic evaluation of complex flow in the true lumen and false lumen (TL, FL) is needed to better understand which patients with chronic descending aortic dissection (DAD) are predisposed to complications.PurposeTo develop quantitative hemodynamic maps from 4D flow MRI for evaluating TL and FL flow characteristics.Study TypeRetrospective.PopulationIn all, 20 DAD patients (age = 60 ± 11 years; 12 male) (six medically managed type B AD [TBAD], 14 repaired type A AD [rTAAD] now with ascending aortic graft [AAo] or elephant trunk [ET1] repair) and 21 age‐matched controls (age = 59 ± 10 years; 13 male) were included.Field Strength/Sequence1.5T, 3T, 4D flow MRI.Assessment4D flow MRI was acquired in all subjects. Data analysis included 3D segmentation of TL and FL and voxelwise calculation of forward flow, reverse flow, flow stasis, and kinetic energy as quantitative hemodynamics maps.Statistical TestsAnalysis of variance (ANOVA) or Kruskal–Wallis tests were performed for comparing subject groups. Correlation and Bland–Altman analysis was performed for the interobserver study.ResultsPatients with rTAAD presented with elevated TL reverse flow (AAo repair: P = 0.004, ET1: P = 0.018) and increased TL kinetic energy (AAo repair: P = 0.0002, ET1: P = 0.011) compared to controls. In addition, TL kinetic energy was increased vs. patients with TBAD (AAo repair: P = 0.021, ET1: P = 0.048). rTAAD was associated with higher FL kinetic energy and lower FL stasis compared to patients with TBAD (AAo repair: P = 0.002, ET1: P = 0.024 and AAo repair: P = 0.003, ET1: P = 0.048, respectively).Data ConclusionQuantitative maps from 4D flow MRI demonstrated global and regional hemodynamic differences between DAD patients and controls. Patients with rTAAD vs. TBAD had significantly altered regional TL and FL hemodynamics. These findings indicate the potential of 4D flow MRI‐derived hemodynamic maps to help better evaluate patients with DAD.Level of Evidence: 3Technical Efficacy Stage: 1J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;51:1357–1368.

The MRI community is using quantitative mapping techniques to complement qualitative imaging. For quantitative imaging to reach its full potential, it is necessary to analyze measurements across systems and longitudinally. Clinical use of quantitative imaging can be facilitated through adoption and use of a standard system phantom, a calibration/standard reference object, to assess the performance of an MRI machine. The International Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine AdHoc Committee on Standards for Quantitative Magnetic Resonance was established in February 2007 to facilitate the expansion of MRI as a mainstream modality for multi‐institutional measurements, including, among other things, multicenter trials. The goal of the Standards for Quantitative Magnetic Resonance committee was to provide a framework to ensure that quantitative measures derived from MR data are comparable over time, between subjects, between sites, and between vendors. This paper, written by members of the Standards for Quantitative Magnetic Resonance committee, reviews standardization attempts and then details the need, requirements, and implementation plan for a standard system phantom for quantitative MRI. In addition, application‐specific phantoms and implementation of quantitative MRI are reviewed. Magn Reson Med 79:48–61, 2018. © 2017 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.