Literature DB >> 19808628

Feasibility of cardiovascular magnetic resonance to assess the orifice area of aortic bioprostheses.

Florian von Knobelsdorff-Brenkenhoff1, André Rudolph, Ralf Wassmuth, Steffen Bohl, Eva Elina Buschmann, Hassan Abdel-Aty, Rainer Dietz, Jeanette Schulz-Menger.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19808628     DOI: 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.108.840967

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Imaging        ISSN: 1941-9651            Impact factor:   7.792


  13 in total

1.  Cardiac chamber quantification using magnetic resonance imaging at 7 Tesla--a pilot study.

Authors:  Florian von Knobelsdorff-Brenkenhoff; Tobias Frauenrath; Marcel Prothmann; Matthias A Dieringer; Fabian Hezel; Wolfgang Renz; Kerstin Kretschel; Thoralf Niendorf; Jeanette Schulz-Menger
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-07-17       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  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

3.  Evaluation of aortic stenosis severity using 4D flow jet shear layer detection for the measurement of valve effective orifice area.

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

4.  Blood flow characteristics in the ascending aorta after aortic valve replacement--a pilot study using 4D-flow MRI.

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

Review 5.  Diagnostic evaluation of left-sided prosthetic heart valve dysfunction.

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

6.  Assessment of mitral bioprostheses using cardiovascular magnetic resonance.

Authors:  Florian von Knobelsdorff-Brenkenhoff; André Rudolph; Ralf Wassmuth; Jeanette Schulz-Menger
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson       Date:  2010-06-23       Impact factor: 5.364

Review 7.  Heart valve disease: investigation by cardiovascular magnetic resonance.

Authors:  Saul G Myerson
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson       Date:  2012-01-19       Impact factor: 5.364

Review 8.  2014 Korean guidelines for appropriate utilization of cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging: a joint report of the Korean Society of Cardiology and the Korean Society of Radiology.

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

Review 9.  2014 korean guidelines for appropriate utilization of cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging: a joint report of the korean society of cardiology and the korean society of radiology.

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

10.  Cardiovascular magnetic resonance assessment of the aortic valve stenosis: an in vivo and ex vivo study.

Authors:  Stefan Buchner; Kurt Debl; Franz-Xaver Schmid; Andreas Luchner; Behrus Djavidani
Journal:  BMC Med Imaging       Date:  2015-08-26       Impact factor: 1.930

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.