BACKGROUND: Prosthetic orifice area, usually calculated by transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) or transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), provides important information regarding the hemodynamic performance of aortic bioprostheses. However, both TTE and TEE have limitations; therefore accurate and reproducible determination of the orifice area often remains a challenge. The present study aimed to investigate the feasibility of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) to assess the orifice areas of aortic bioprostheses. METHODS AND RESULTS: CMR planimetry of the orifice area was performed in 65 patients (43/22 stented/stentless prostheses; mean time since implantation, 3.1+/-2.8 years; mean orifice area [TTE], 1.70+/-0.43 cm(2); 62 normally functioning prostheses, 2 severe stenoses, and 1 severe regurgitation) in an imaging plane perpendicular to the transprosthetic flow using steady-state free-precession cine imaging under breath-hold conditions on a 1.5-T MR system. CMR results were compared with TTE (continuity equation, n=65) and TEE (planimetry, n=31). CMR planimetry was readily feasible in 80.0%; feasible with limitation in 15.4% because of stent, flow, and sternal wire artifacts; and impossible in 4.6% because of flow artifacts. Correlations of the orifice areas by CMR with TTE (r=0.82) and CMR with TEE (r=0.92) were significant. The average difference between the methods was -0.02+/-0.24 cm(2) (TTE) and 0.05+/-0.15 cm(2) (TEE). Agreement was present for stented and stentless devices and independent of orifice size. Intraobserver and interobserver variabilities of CMR planimetry were 6.7+/-5.4% and 11.5+/-7.8%. CONCLUSIONS: The assessment of aortic bioprostheses with normal orifice areas by CMR is technically feasible and provides orifice areas with a close correlation to echocardiography and low observer dependency.
BACKGROUND: Prosthetic orifice area, usually calculated by transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) or transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), provides important information regarding the hemodynamic performance of aortic bioprostheses. However, both TTE and TEE have limitations; therefore accurate and reproducible determination of the orifice area often remains a challenge. The present study aimed to investigate the feasibility of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) to assess the orifice areas of aortic bioprostheses. METHODS AND RESULTS: CMR planimetry of the orifice area was performed in 65 patients (43/22 stented/stentless prostheses; mean time since implantation, 3.1+/-2.8 years; mean orifice area [TTE], 1.70+/-0.43 cm(2); 62 normally functioning prostheses, 2 severe stenoses, and 1 severe regurgitation) in an imaging plane perpendicular to the transprosthetic flow using steady-state free-precession cine imaging under breath-hold conditions on a 1.5-T MR system. CMR results were compared with TTE (continuity equation, n=65) and TEE (planimetry, n=31). CMR planimetry was readily feasible in 80.0%; feasible with limitation in 15.4% because of stent, flow, and sternal wire artifacts; and impossible in 4.6% because of flow artifacts. Correlations of the orifice areas by CMR with TTE (r=0.82) and CMR with TEE (r=0.92) were significant. The average difference between the methods was -0.02+/-0.24 cm(2) (TTE) and 0.05+/-0.15 cm(2) (TEE). Agreement was present for stented and stentless devices and independent of orifice size. Intraobserver and interobserver variabilities of CMR planimetry were 6.7+/-5.4% and 11.5+/-7.8%. CONCLUSIONS: The assessment of aortic bioprostheses with normal orifice areas by CMR is technically feasible and provides orifice areas with a close correlation to echocardiography and low observer dependency.
Authors: Julio Garcia; Michael Markl; Susanne Schnell; Bradley Allen; Pegah Entezari; Riti Mahadevia; S Chris Malaisrie; Philippe Pibarot; James Carr; Alex J Barker Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2014-04-24 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Florian von Knobelsdorff-Brenkenhoff; Ralf F Trauzeddel; Alex J Barker; Henriette Gruettner; Michael Markl; Jeanette Schulz-Menger Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2013-11-25 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Jesse Habets; Ricardo P Budde; Petr Symersky; Renee B van den Brink; Bas A de Mol; Willem P Mali; Lex A van Herwerden; Steven A Chamuleau Journal: Nat Rev Cardiol Date: 2011-05-17 Impact factor: 32.419
Authors: Yeonyee E Yoon; Yoo Jin Hong; Hyung-Kwan Kim; Jeong A Kim; Jin Oh Na; Dong Hyun Yang; Young Jin Kim; Eui-Young Choi Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2014-11-07 Impact factor: 3.500
Authors: Yeonyee E Yoon; Yoo Jin Hong; Hyung-Kwan Kim; Jeong A Kim; Jin Oh Na; Dong Hyun Yang; Young Jin Kim; Eui-Young Choi Journal: Korean Circ J Date: 2014-11-25 Impact factor: 3.243
Authors: Stefan Buchner; Kurt Debl; Franz-Xaver Schmid; Andreas Luchner; Behrus Djavidani Journal: BMC Med Imaging Date: 2015-08-26 Impact factor: 1.930