Feb 20, 2024

Harm Bogaard, MD, Ph.D., FAHA is a pulmonologist at the Amsterdam UMC. In this episode, he discusses the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in monitoring pulmonary hypertension patients. Dr. Bogaard explains that MRI is a valuable tool for assessing the function and structure of the right heart, which is crucial in determining the prognosis and long-term outcomes of patients with pulmonary hypertension.
My
name is Harm Bogaard. I'm a pulmonologist here in Amsterdam in the
Netherlands. I work at the National Expert Center for pulmonary
hypertension patients. We have a clinic, obviously, with patients
mainly with idiopathic and hereditary PAH. We also have a chronic
thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) program with
diagnostics, surgeries, balloon pulmonary angioplasty. In addition
to my clinical work, we have a translational lab to find out more
about different forms of pulmonary hypertension and its
treatment.
Today, I would like to tell you a little bit about how we use
magnetic resonance imaging in the Netherlands to monitor our
pulmonary hypertension patients. We started doing this 20 years ago
to use non-invasive imaging by magnetic resonance imaging or MRI to
basically follow the function and structure of the right heart in
our patients. It's been known for quite some time that the
prognosis and the long-term outcomes in patients with pulmonary
hypertension are really determined by the capacity of the right
heart to adapt to the high load. Exercise testing, like the
six-minute walk test, provides some indirect information about the
functioning of the right heart. NT-proBNP does the same thing.
Echocardiography also gives you some clue as to how well the right
heart adapts, but the right heart is quite difficult to understand
and also to image by echocardiography. We've found some 20 years
ago already that MRI is really a fantastic tool to get a really
good grip on the adaptation of the right heart.
We started following our patients (around 2,000) with MRI. We did a
lot of research, so we showed that MRI gives very valuable
prognostic information. We also learned a lot about how
physiologically the right heart adapts to high pressure. Now, we've
really adopted the use of MRI in our routine follow-up. So, it
basically means that we hardly ever do a repeat right heart
catheterization in our patients. We used to do many. We used to do
like four months after initiation of treatment, and then after one
year, after two years, after three years, we did a lot of right
heart catheterizations. But now, we've gathered so much data with
MRI, we really know that we can get very similar or sometimes even
better information by doing a non-invasive MRI.
The setting in our hospital is quite unique because the hospital is
devoted to imaging and we get some really good deals basically by
the hospital or administration to do this in a very cheap way and
to get the personnel to do this. I know that it's difficult in many
other hospitals. There's limited time available for MRI scanning,
it's expensive. I wish the situation would be better because I
really feel that this is a great way for patients to be
followed.
The only downside is that some patients are claustrophobic. It is a
tight space. Fortunately, the more modern MRIs are a little bit
bigger, so it doesn't feel so cramped anymore, but some people do
have some problems with getting into this tube. Fortunately, it's
only a small minority and most of our patients we can follow really
well by doing MRI.
We can even do some more sophisticated testing. We have the
possibility to do exercise in the MRI, so patients are on a
recumbent bike. They can stress their heart and we can look at how
the heart adapts to exercise, which gives a ton of additional
information. By using different techniques, we can look at the
development of scar tissue in the heart, which is also important
prognostic information development fibrosis in the right heart. We
can look at how well the heart readjusts when given treatment. We
can easily look at basically how much treatment you need to give to
get a really good response in the right heart. We make great use of
it and we hope that the technique can be implemented in a much
larger scale. Maybe in clinical management of patients, but also as
an endpoint in trials MRI could be really useful.
In many countries, right heart catheterization is still considered
the best way to diagnose your patients in the first place and also
to follow your patients. I think for a proper diagnosis, I fully
agree, a right heart catheterization is still necessary, because
right heart catheterization gives you the only real means by which
you can make a distinction between real pulmonary vascular disease
or other causes of pulmonary hypertension. Even though there are
definitely developments in imaging, if we still see it the same in
10 or 15 years, I think then we probably (will) get rid of a right
heart catheterization altogether. But right now, for diagnosis, I
still have to agree that the right heart catheterization is what
you need to do. But for follow-up, by now, we really know which
parameters that you get from a right heart catheterization, which
are informative; which is basically stroke volume, which is the
most informative value from a right heart catheterization. We can
derive this perfectly with MRI.
In the follow-up of your patients, I don’t think there's a real
need to do a repeat right heart catheterization unless maybe you do
still have some doubt as to whether you have the diagnosis righ.
Maybe that's still a reason to do it. But in general, I think all
of the important prognostic parameters that you can get from right
heart catheterization, you get from MRI.
Of course, I can recommend to ask for an MRI. But yeah, if the
local situation is as such that is not available, then, yeah,
there's maybe not much that you can do other than using the
techniques that are available. I'm not saying that you can only
follow your patient right with MRI, because there are alternatives
you can do a right heart catheterization and be informed in that
way. So, it's not that you're not getting the right treatment, but
it's a little bit more non-invasive of course, if you can do an
MRI. So, if it is reimbursed, if there are possibilities, then go
for it. Ask your doctor to get an MRI.
So here in the Netherlands, we are in a situation that we can use
MRI and I'm really grateful for it and it's really helpful. I'm not
saying that you cannot follow your patient in a proper way if you
don't use MRI. There are definitely other ways to do an excellent
monitoring and provide the best care to your patients, but I do
know that MRI makes it a little bit easier. To be able to do this
in a non-invasive way is very comfortable for the patient friendly.
So, I hope the technique will become more widely available.
I'm Harm Bogaard and I'm aware that my patients are
rare.
Learn more
about pulmonary hypertension trials at www.phaware.global/clinicaltrials.
Follow us on social @phaware Engage for a cure: www.phaware.global/donate
#phaware
Share your story: info@phaware.com
#phawareMD