Back

Consistency of the continuous flow pressure gradient despite aortic arch anomalies co-existing with coarctation

Ghorbannia, A.; Spearman, A.; Sawalhi, S.; Woods, R.; Maadooliat, M.; LaDisa, J. F.

2023-10-30 pediatrics
10.1101/2023.10.30.23297763 medRxiv
Show abstract

AimsSeverity assessment for coarctation of the aorta (CoA) is challenging due to concomitant morphological anomalies (complex CoA) and inaccurate Doppler-based indices. Promising diagnostic performance has been reported for the continuous flow pressure gradient (CFPG), but it has not been studied in complex CoA. Our objective was to characterize the effect of complex CoA and associated hemodynamics on CFPG in a clinical cohort. Methods and ResultsRetrospective analysis identified discrete juxtaductal (n=25) and complex CoA (n=43; transverse arch and/or isthmus hypoplasia) patients with arm-leg systolic blood pressure gradients (BPG) within 24 hours of echocardiography for comparison to BPG by conventional Doppler indices (simplified Bernoulli equation and modified forms correcting for proximal kinetic energy and/or recovered pressure). Results were interpreted using the current CoA guideline (BPG [≥]20 mmHg) to compare diagnostic performance indicators including receiver operating characteristic curves, sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy, among others. Echocardiography Z-scored aortic diameters were applied with computational stimulations from a preclinical CoA model to understand aspects of the CFPG driving performance differences. Diagnostic performance was substantially reduced from discrete to complex CoA for conventional Doppler indices calculated from patient data, and by hypoplasia and/or long segment stenosis in simulations. In contrast, diagnostic indicators for the CFPG only modestly dropped for complex vs discrete CoA. Simulations revealed differences in performance due to inclusion of the Doppler velocity index and diastolic pressure half-time in the CFPG calculation. ConclusionCFPG is less affected by aortic arch anomalies co-existing with CoA when compared to conventional Doppler indices.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of the American Heart Association
140 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
19.1%
2
Pulmonary Circulation
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
15.6%
3
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
53 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.3%
4
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 12%
6.5%
50% of probability mass above
5
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 29%
5.3%
6
Hypertension
36 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
5.0%
7
Journal of Biomechanics
64 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.2%
8
Critical Care Explorations
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.2%
9
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
37 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.9%
10
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.5%
11
Physiological Measurement
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.2%
12
Frontiers in Pediatrics
32 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.2%
13
PLOS Digital Health
106 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
14
The Journal of Pediatrics
16 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.0%
15
Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology
29 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
16
Journal of Biomechanical Engineering
20 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
17
Medicine
31 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
18
Pediatric Research
21 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%
19
Frontiers in Neuroscience
256 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.6%
20
Cureus
68 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%
21
Clinical and Translational Science
22 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.6%
22
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.5%
23
Healthcare
17 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
24
BioData Mining
22 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
25
Annals of Internal Medicine
28 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.5%
26
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.5%
27
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
235 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.5%