Literature DB >> 14568899

Practical value of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging for clinical quantification of aortic valve stenosis: comparison with echocardiography.

Shelton D Caruthers1, Shiow Jiuan Lin, Peggy Brown, Mary P Watkins, Todd A Williams, Katherine A Lehr, Samuel A Wickline.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Valvular pathology can be analyzed quickly and accurately through the use of Doppler ultrasound. For aortic stenosis, the continuity equation approach with Doppler velocity-time integral (VTI) data is by far the most commonly used clinical method of quantification. In view of the emerging popularity of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) as a routine clinical imaging tool, the purposes of this study were to define the reliability of velocity-encoded CMR as a routine method for quantifying stenotic aortic valve area, to compare this method with the accepted standard, and to evaluate its reproducibility. METHODS AND
RESULTS: Patients (n=24) with aortic stenosis (ranging from 0.5 to 1.8 cm2) were imaged with CMR and echocardiography. Velocity-encoded CMR was used to obtain velocity information in the aorta and left ventricular outflow tract. From this flow data, pressure gradients were estimated by means of the modified Bernoulli equation, and VTIs were calculated to estimate aortic valve orifice dimensions by means of the continuity equation. The correlation coefficients between modalities for pressure gradients were r=0.83 for peak and r=0.87 for mean. The measurements of VTI correlated well, leading to an overall strong correlation between modalities for the estimation of valve dimension (r=0.83, by means of the identified best approach). For 5 patients, the CMR examination was repeated using the best approach. The repeat calculations of valve size correlated well (r=0.94).
CONCLUSIONS: Velocity-encoded CMR can be used as a reliable, user-friendly tool to evaluate stenotic aortic valves. The measurements of pressure gradients, VTIs, and the valve dimension correlate well with the accepted standard of Doppler ultrasound.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14568899     DOI: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000095268.47282.A1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Circulation        ISSN: 0009-7322            Impact factor:   29.690


  72 in total

1.  ACCF/ACR/AHA/NASCI/SCMR 2010 expert consensus document on cardiovascular magnetic resonance: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Task Force on Expert Consensus Documents.

Authors:  W Gregory Hundley; David A Bluemke; J Paul Finn; Scott D Flamm; Mark A Fogel; Matthias G Friedrich; Vincent B Ho; Michael Jerosch-Herold; Christopher M Kramer; Warren J Manning; Manesh Patel; Gerald M Pohost; Arthur E Stillman; Richard D White; Pamela K Woodard
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2010-05-17       Impact factor: 29.690

Review 2.  ACCF/ACR/AHA/NASCI/SCMR 2010 expert consensus document on cardiovascular magnetic resonance: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Task Force on Expert Consensus Documents.

Authors:  W Gregory Hundley; David A Bluemke; J Paul Finn; Scott D Flamm; Mark A Fogel; Matthias G Friedrich; Vincent B Ho; Michael Jerosch-Herold; Christopher M Kramer; Warren J Manning; Manesh Patel; Gerald M Pohost; Arthur E Stillman; Richard D White; Pamela K Woodard
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2010-06-08       Impact factor: 24.094

Review 3.  Cardiac imaging in valvular heart disease.

Authors:  W S Choo; R P Steeds
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  Four-dimensional flow MRI for evaluation of post-stenotic turbulent flow in a phantom: comparison with flowmeter and computational fluid dynamics.

Authors:  Jihoon Kweon; Dong Hyun Yang; Guk Bae Kim; Namkug Kim; MunYoung Paek; Aurelien F Stalder; Andreas Greiser; Young-Hak Kim
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-01-08       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Measurement of the ascending aorta diameter in patients with severe bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valve stenosis using dual-source computed tomography coronary angiography.

Authors:  Jee Young Son; Sung Min Ko; Jin Woo Choi; Meong Gun Song; Hweung Kon Hwang; Sook Jin Lee; Joon-Won Kang
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2011-10-19       Impact factor: 2.357

6.  Grading of aortic stenosis severity: a head-to-head comparison between cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and echocardiography.

Authors:  Cesare Mantini; Gabriele Di Giammarco; Jacopo Pizzicannella; Sabina Gallina; Fabrizio Ricci; Emilia D'Ugo; Marziale Marchetti; Antonio Raffaele Cotroneo; Nauman Ahmed; Chiara Bucciarelli-Ducci; Armando Tartaro; Raffaele De Caterina
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2018-05-05       Impact factor: 3.469

7.  Approach to the patient with bicuspid aortic valve and ascending aorta aneurysm.

Authors:  José T Ortiz; David D Shin; Nalini M Rajamannan
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2006-12

8.  Imaging and quantifying valvular heart disease using magnetic resonance techniques.

Authors:  George E Gentchos; Marc D Tischler; Timothy F Christian
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2006-12

9.  Cardiac MRI in the management of congenital heart disease in children, adolescents, and young adults.

Authors:  Pamela K Woodard; Sanjeev Bhalla; Cylen Javidan-Nejad; Andrew Bierhals; Fernando R Gutierrez; Gautam K Singh
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2008-09

10.  Efficient method for volumetric assessment of peak blood flow velocity using 4D flow MRI.

Authors:  Michael J Rose; Kelly Jarvis; Varun Chowdhary; Alex J Barker; Bradley D Allen; Joshua D Robinson; Michael Markl; Cynthia K Rigsby; Susanne Schnell
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2016-05-18       Impact factor: 4.813

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.