BACKGROUND: There are several methods to quantify mitral regurgitation (MR) by cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). The interoperability of these methods and their reproducibility remains undetermined. OBJECTIVE: To determine the agreement and reproducibility of different MR quantification methods by CMR across all aetiologies. METHODS: Thirty-five patients with MR were recruited (primary MR = 12, secondary MR = 10 and MVR = 13). Patients underwent CMR, including cines and four-dimensional flow (4D flow). Four methods were evaluated: MRStandard (left ventricular stroke volume - aortic forward flow by phase contrast), MRLVRV (left ventricular stroke volume - right ventricular stroke volume), MRJet (direct jet quantification by 4D flow) and MRMVAV (mitral forward flow by 4D flow - aortic forward flow by 4D flow). For all cases and MR types, 520 MR volumes were recorded by these 4 methods for intra-/inter-observer tests. RESULTS: In primary MR, MRMVAV and MRLVRV were comparable to MRStandard (P > 0.05). MRJet resulted in significantly higher MR volumes when compared to MRStandard (P < 0.05) In secondary MR and MVR cases, all methods were comparable. In intra-observer tests, MRMVAV demonstrated least bias with best limits of agreement (bias = -0.1 ml, -8 ml to 7.8 ml, P = 0.9) and best concordance correlation coefficient (CCC = 0.96, P < 0.01). In inter-observer tests, for primary MR and MVR, least bias and highest CCC were observed for MRMVAV. For secondary MR, bias was lowest for MRJet (-0.1 ml, PNS). CONCLUSION: CMR methods of MR quantification demonstrate agreement in secondary MR and MVR. In primary MR, this was not observed. Across all types of MR, MRMVAV quantification demonstrated the highest reproducibility and consistency.
BACKGROUND: There are several methods to quantify mitral regurgitation (MR) by cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). The interoperability of these methods and their reproducibility remains undetermined. OBJECTIVE: To determine the agreement and reproducibility of different MR quantification methods by CMR across all aetiologies. METHODS: Thirty-five patients with MR were recruited (primary MR = 12, secondary MR = 10 and MVR = 13). Patients underwent CMR, including cines and four-dimensional flow (4D flow). Four methods were evaluated: MRStandard (left ventricular stroke volume - aortic forward flow by phase contrast), MRLVRV (left ventricular stroke volume - right ventricular stroke volume), MRJet (direct jet quantification by 4D flow) and MRMVAV (mitral forward flow by 4D flow - aortic forward flow by 4D flow). For all cases and MR types, 520 MR volumes were recorded by these 4 methods for intra-/inter-observer tests. RESULTS: In primary MR, MRMVAV and MRLVRV were comparable to MRStandard (P > 0.05). MRJet resulted in significantly higher MR volumes when compared to MRStandard (P < 0.05) In secondary MR and MVR cases, all methods were comparable. In intra-observer tests, MRMVAV demonstrated least bias with best limits of agreement (bias = -0.1 ml, -8 ml to 7.8 ml, P = 0.9) and best concordance correlation coefficient (CCC = 0.96, P < 0.01). In inter-observer tests, for primary MR and MVR, least bias and highest CCC were observed for MRMVAV. For secondary MR, bias was lowest for MRJet (-0.1 ml, PNS). CONCLUSION: CMR methods of MR quantification demonstrate agreement in secondary MR and MVR. In primary MR, this was not observed. Across all types of MR, MRMVAV quantification demonstrated the highest reproducibility and consistency.
Authors: Jun-Mei Zhang; Ru San Tan; Shuo Zhang; Rob van der Geest; Pankaj Garg; Bao Ru Leong; Jennifer Bryant; Tarinee Tangcharoen; Xiaodan Zhao; Ju Le Tan; Jos Jm Westenberg; Liang Zhong Journal: Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc Date: 2018-07
Authors: Martin Penicka; Jozef Bartunek; Helena Trakalova; Hana Hrabakova; Michaela Maruskova; Jiri Karasek; Viktor Kocka Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-04-20 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Martin Penicka; Jan Vecera; Daniela C Mirica; Martin Kotrc; Radka Kockova; Guy Van Camp Journal: Circulation Date: 2017-12-21 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Jos J M Westenberg; Stijntje D Roes; Nina Ajmone Marsan; Nico M J Binnendijk; Joost Doornbos; Jeroen J Bax; Johan H C Reiber; Albert de Roos; Robert J van der Geest Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-10-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Mikael Kanski; Johannes Töger; Katarina Steding-Ehrenborg; Christos Xanthis; Karin Markenroth Bloch; Einar Heiberg; Marcus Carlsson; Håkan Arheden Journal: BMC Med Imaging Date: 2015-06-18 Impact factor: 1.930
Authors: Pankaj Garg; David A Broadbent; Peter P Swoboda; James R J Foley; Graham J Fent; Tarique A Musa; David P Ripley; Bara Erhayiem; Laura E Dobson; Adam K McDiarmid; Philip Haaf; Ananth Kidambi; Saul Crandon; Pei G Chew; R J van der Geest; John P Greenwood; Sven Plein Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2017-09-25 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Pankaj Garg; Jos J M Westenberg; Pieter J van den Boogaard; Peter P Swoboda; Rahoz Aziz; James R J Foley; Graham J Fent; F G J Tyl; L Coratella; Mohammed S M ElBaz; R J van der Geest; David M Higgins; John P Greenwood; Sven Plein Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-05-04 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Pei G Chew; Laura E Dobson; Pankaj Garg; Timothy A Fairbairn; Tarique A Musa; Akhlaque Uddin; Peter P Swoboda; James R Foley; Graham J Fent; Louise A E Brown; Sebastian Onciul; Sven Plein; Daniel J Blackman; John P Greenwood Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2018-09-04 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Lobke L Pype; Philippe B Bertrand; Bernard P Paelinck; Hein Heidbuchel; Emeline M Van Craenenbroeck; Caroline M Van De Heyning Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-04-12
Authors: Hosamadin Assadi; Ciaran Grafton-Clarke; Ahmet Demirkiran; Rob J van der Geest; Robin Nijveldt; Marcus Flather; Andrew J Swift; Vass S Vassiliou; Peter P Swoboda; Amardeep Dastidar; John P Greenwood; Sven Plein; Pankaj Garg Journal: BMC Res Notes Date: 2022-05-15
Authors: Miroslawa Gorecka; Malenka M Bissell; David M Higgins; Pankaj Garg; Sven Plein; John P Greenwood Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2022-08-22 Impact factor: 6.903