Skip to main content
. 2016 Apr 21;89(1063):20150995. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20150995

Table 3.

Parameters derived from the time course of the main pulmonary artery blood flow obtained from MR phase-contrast measurements and their correlation to the main pulmonary arterial pressure (mPAP) and pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR)

Reference PH non-PH Correlation mPAP/PVR Comment
Qmax (ml s−1)
Barker et al56 277 ± 73 337 ± 72   10 patients with PAH, 9 healthy controls (2 centres). Evaluation from 4D PC imaging
Qmean (ml s−1)
Guo et al55 74 ± 20 73 ± 18 −0.38/−0.73 20 patients with CTEPH, 20 healthy controls. Linear correlation with indexed PVR
Ley et al54 35 ± 13* 47 ± 17# 67 ± 20 35 patients with CTEPH (*pre- and #post pulmonary thromboendarterectomy), 10 healthy controls
Ley et al27 82 ± 23 107 ± 25 22 patients with PAH, 25 healthy controls
Truong et al52 40 ± 16 43 ± 20 25 paediatric patients with PAH, 4 paediatric healthy controls. Non-significant difference
Ley et al57 95 ± 20* 85 ± 23#   10/10 patients with PH (all groups) *with/#without training (here: baseline values)
Relative RF (%)
Kondo et al61 17 ± 14 3 ± 2 0.20/0.48 10 patients with PH (all groups), 10 non-PH patients. Non-significant correlation with mPAP. Natural logarithm of RF: correlation with mPAP/PVR = 0.48/0.63
Helderman et al51 9 ± 5 1 ± 1 R2 = 0.54/– 38 patients with PAH, 17 non-PH patients
Swift et al15 16 ± 9 9 ± 7 0.34/0.31 106 patients with PH (all groups) and non-PH patients; linear correlation with mPAP and PVR. AUCmPAP>25mmHg = 0.75
AccV (ml)
Mousseaux et al62 15 ± 5 29 ± 8# 42 ± 12* –/−0.78 12 patients with PH (all groups),#7 non-PH patients,*10 healthy controls
Maximal dQ/dtmax (ml s−2)
Mousseaux et al62 6.77 ± 1.80 6.59 ± 1.05# 7.18 ± 2.72* 12 patients with PH (all groups),#7 non-PH patients,*10 healthy controls
AT (ms)
Mousseaux et al62 87 ± 24 128 ± 23# 134 ± 19* –/−0.65 12 patients with PH (all groups),#7 non-PH patients,*10 healthy controls
Sanz et al48 128 ± 26 146 ± 22 −0.35/−0.35 42 patients with PAH, 10 healthy controls; linear correlation with mPAP and indexed PVR
Helderman et al51 89 ± 29 107 ± 20 38 patients with PAH, 17 non-PH patients
Alunni et al25 127 ± 34   –/−0.50 37 patients with PH
ET (ms)
Sanz et al48 383 ± 77 393 ± 74 −0.17/−0.19 42 patients with PAH, 10 healthy controls; non-significant correlations with mPAP and indexed PVR
Alunni et al25 322 ± 60 37 patients with PH
AT/ET (ms)
Sanz et al48 0.34 ± 0.08 0.37 ± 0.08 −0.28/−0.29 42 patients with PAH, 17 non-PH patients; linear correlation with mPAP and indexed PVR
Helderman et al51 0.29 ± 0.07 0.34 ± 0.07 38 patients with PAH, 17 non-PH patients
Rolf et al53 0.32 ± 0.06* 0.36 ± 0.09# 57 patients with CTEPH *pre- and #post endarterectomy
rROT (%)
Helderman et al51 14 ± 6 37 ± 6 R2 = 0.62/– 38 patients with PAH, 17 non-PH patients. rROT >25%; sensitivity/specificity = 100%/100%

4D, four-dimensional; AccV, acceleration volume; AUC, area under the curve; AT, acceleration time; CTEPH, chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension; dQ/dtmax, maximum change in flow rate during ejection; ET, ejection time; PAH, pulmonary arterial hypertension; PH, pulmonary hypertension; Qmax, maximal blood flow; Qmean, mean blood flow; RF, retrograde blood flow; rROT, relative onset of retrograde flow.