BACKGROUND: In cases when Doppler ultrasound examinations are not reliable for determining the severity of aortic valve stenosis, patients undergo a catheterisation. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a promising tool for the determination of this disease. AIM: We investigated the value of MRI as a substitute for catheterisation in such circumstances, by comparing MRI measurements with Doppler ultrasound measurements. METHODS: Five volunteers and ten patients entered this study, which was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee. A 1.0T MRI scanner was used for cardiac MRI. On the same day, a Doppler ultrasound examination was performed. The maximum velocity and the orifice area of the aortic valve (called orifice) were compared. RESULTS: A good correlation was observed between the maximum velocity measured with MRI and that measured with ultrasound (r2=0.95) and between the orifice determined by MRI and by ultrasound (r2=0.94); however, the orifice determined by MRI is consistently larger than the orifice determined by ultrasound. CONCLUSION: MRI measurements of velocity and orifice of the aortic valve correlate well with Doppler ultrasound measurement. MRI is a useful diagnostic tool and can be a good substitute for catheterisation, in particular because it allows simultaneous acquisition of anatomical and functional information.
BACKGROUND: In cases when Doppler ultrasound examinations are not reliable for determining the severity of aortic valve stenosis, patients undergo a catheterisation. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a promising tool for the determination of this disease. AIM: We investigated the value of MRI as a substitute for catheterisation in such circumstances, by comparing MRI measurements with Doppler ultrasound measurements. METHODS: Five volunteers and ten patients entered this study, which was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee. A 1.0T MRI scanner was used for cardiac MRI. On the same day, a Doppler ultrasound examination was performed. The maximum velocity and the orifice area of the aortic valve (called orifice) were compared. RESULTS: A good correlation was observed between the maximum velocity measured with MRI and that measured with ultrasound (r2=0.95) and between the orifice determined by MRI and by ultrasound (r2=0.94); however, the orifice determined by MRI is consistently larger than the orifice determined by ultrasound. CONCLUSION: MRI measurements of velocity and orifice of the aortic valve correlate well with Doppler ultrasound measurement. MRI is a useful diagnostic tool and can be a good substitute for catheterisation, in particular because it allows simultaneous acquisition of anatomical and functional information.
Authors: Shelton D Caruthers; Shiow Jiuan Lin; Peggy Brown; Mary P Watkins; Todd A Williams; Katherine A Lehr; Samuel A Wickline Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-10-20 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Anna S John; Thorsten Dill; Roland R Brandt; Matthias Rau; Wolfgang Ricken; Georg Bachmann; Christian W Hamm Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2003-08-06 Impact factor: 24.094