Literature DB >> 15253962

Evaluation of aortic stenosis by cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging: comparison with established routine clinical techniques.

C Kupfahl1, M Honold, G Meinhardt, H Vogelsberg, A Wagner, H Mahrholdt, U Sechtem.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether direct planimetry of aortic valve area (AVA) by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging is a reliable tool for determining the severity of aortic stenosis compared with transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE), and cardiac catheterisation.
METHODS: 44 symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis were studied. By cardiac catheterisation AVA was calculated by the Gorlin equation. AVA was measured with CMR from steady state free precession (true fast imaging with steady state precession) by planimetry. AVA was also determined from TOE images by planimetry and from TTE images by the continuity equation.
RESULTS: Bland-Altman analysis evaluating intraobserver and interobserver variability showed a very small bias for both (-0.016 and 0.019, respectively; n = 20). Bias and limits of agreement between CMR and TTE were 0.05 (-0.35, 0.44) cm2 (n = 37), between CMR and TOE 0.02 (-0.39, 0.42) cm2 (n = 32), and between CMR and cardiac catheterisation 0.09 (-0.30, 0.47) cm2 (n = 36). The sensitivity and specificity of CMR to detect AVA < or = 0.80 cm2 measured by cardiac catheterisation was 78% and 89%, of TOE 70% and 70%, and of TTE 74% and 67%, respectively.
CONCLUSION: CMR planimetry is highly reliable and reproducible. Further, CMR planimetry had the best sensitivity and specificity of all non-invasive methods for detecting severe aortic stenosis in comparison with cardiac catheterisation. Therefore, CMR planimetry of AVA with steady state free precession is a new powerful diagnostic tool, particularly for patients with uncertain or discrepant findings by other modalities.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15253962      PMCID: PMC1768383          DOI: 10.1136/hrt.2003.022376

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Heart        ISSN: 1355-6037            Impact factor:   5.994


  39 in total

1.  MR evaluation of ventricular function: true fast imaging with steady-state precession versus fast low-angle shot cine MR imaging: feasibility study.

Authors:  J Barkhausen; S G Ruehm; M Goyen; T Buck; G Laub; J F Debatin
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 2.  Magnetic resonance imaging safety: implications for cardiovascular patients.

Authors:  S Ahmed; F G Shellock
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 5.364

3.  Steady-state free precession magnetic resonance imaging of the heart: comparison with segmented k-space gradient-echo imaging.

Authors:  S Plein; T N Bloomer; J P Ridgway; T R Jones; G J Bainbridge; M U Sivananthan
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 4.813

4.  Functional cardiac MR imaging with steady-state free precession (SSFP) significantly improves endocardial border delineation without contrast agents.

Authors:  H Thiele; E Nagel; I Paetsch; B Schnackenburg; A Bornstedt; M Kouwenhoven; A Wahl; G Schuler; E Fleck
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 4.813

5.  Cine MR angiography of the heart with segmented true fast imaging with steady-state precession.

Authors:  J C Carr; O Simonetti; J Bundy; D Li; S Pereles; J P Finn
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Normal human right and left ventricular mass, systolic function, and gender differences by cine magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  C H Lorenz; E S Walker; V L Morgan; S S Klein; T P Graham
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 5.364

7.  Cine MRI using steady state free precession in the radial long axis orientation is a fast accurate method for obtaining volumetric data of the left ventricle.

Authors:  T N Bloomer; S Plein; A Radjenovic; D M Higgins; T R Jones; J P Ridgway; M U Sivananthan
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 4.813

8.  Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty.

Authors:  A R Gruentzig
Journal:  Semin Roentgenol       Date:  1981-04       Impact factor: 0.800

9.  TrueFISP: assessment of accuracy for measurement of left ventricular mass in an animal model.

Authors:  David S Fieno; Wyatt C Jaffe; Orlando P Simonetti; Robert M Judd; J Paul Finn
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 4.813

10.  Factors affecting Doppler echocardiographic valve area assessment in aortic stenosis.

Authors:  R Danielsen; J E Nordrehaug; H Vik-Mo
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  1989-05-01       Impact factor: 2.778

View more
  36 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

3.  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

Review 4.  [MR imaging and MR angiography of the aorta].

Authors:  G Schneider; A Massmann; K Altmeyer; M Katoh; A Bücker
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 0.635

5.  Aortic valves stenosis and regurgitation: assessment with dual source computed tomography.

Authors:  Xiaofei Li; Lijun Tang; Lei Zhou; Yuqing Duan; Sheng Yanhui; Rong Yang; Yanhu Wu; Xiangqing Kong
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2009-04-07       Impact factor: 2.357

6.  Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: A teaching atlas with emphasizing current clinical indications.

Authors:  Ahmed L Fathala
Journal:  J Saudi Heart Assoc       Date:  2011-07-30

7.  Fully automated 3D aortic segmentation of 4D flow MRI for hemodynamic analysis using deep learning.

Authors:  Haben Berhane; Michael Scott; Mohammed Elbaz; Kelly Jarvis; Patrick McCarthy; James Carr; Chris Malaisrie; Ryan Avery; Alex J Barker; Joshua D Robinson; Cynthia K Rigsby; Michael Markl
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2020-03-13       Impact factor: 4.668

Review 8.  Valvular heart disease: what does cardiovascular MRI add?

Authors:  Pier Giorgio Masci; Steven Dymarkowski; Jan Bogaert
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-08-29       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Quantification of aortic valve area and left ventricular muscle mass in healthy subjects and patients with symptomatic aortic valve stenosis by MRI.

Authors:  J Haimerl; A Freitag-Krikovic; A Rauch; E Sauer
Journal:  Z Kardiol       Date:  2005-03

10.  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
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.