3-T magnetic resonance for determination of aortic valve area: A comparison to echocardiography

Scandinavian Cardiovascular Journal

Volumn 48, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 176-183

  Speiser, Uwe ^a   Quick, Silvio ^a   Haas, David ^a   Youssef, Akram ^a   Waessnig, Nadine K ^a   Ibrahim, Karim ^a   Strasser, Ruth H ^a   Schoen, Steffen ^b  

^a DRESDEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Germany)

^b Klinikum Pirna Klinik für Innere Medizin   (Germany)

Author keywords

Aortic stenosis; Aortic valve; CMR; Echocardiography

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AORTA STENOSIS; AORTA VALVE; ARTICLE; BLOOD FLOW VELOCITY; CARDIAC PATIENT; CARDIOVASCULAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DOPPLER ECHO; ECHOCARDIOGRAPH; FEMALE; HEART LEFT VENTRICLE EJECTION FRACTION; HEART LEFT VENTRICLE OUTFLOW TRACT; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAGNETIC FIELD; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; TRANSTHORACIC ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY; TWO DIMENSIONAL ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY; AGED; AORTIC VALVE STENOSIS; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY; ECHOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; VERY ELDERLY;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AORTIC VALVE; AORTIC VALVE STENOSIS; ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED;

EID: 84902078660     PISSN: 14017431     EISSN: 16512006     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/14017431.2014.906646     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Go aS, mozaffarian D, roger vl, benjamin EJ, berry JD, borden wb, et al. Executive summary: heart disease and stroke statistics-2013 update: a report from the american Heart association. american Heart association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Circulation 2013;127:143-52.
2. bach DS, Siao D, Girard SE, Duvernoy C, mcCallister bD Jr, Gualano Sk. Evaluation of patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis who do not undergo aortic valve replacement: the potential role of subjectively overestimated operative risk. Circ Cardiovasc Qual outcomes. 2009;2: 533-9.
3. Joint Task Force on the management of valvular Heart Disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC); European association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EaCTS).
4. vahanian a, alferi o, andreotti F, antunes mJ, barón-Esquivias G, baumgartner H, et al. Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease (version 2012). Eur Heart J. 2012;33:2451-96.
5. Danielsen R, Nordrehaug JE, vik-mo H. Factors affecting Doppler echocardiographic valve area assessment in aortic stenosis. am J Cardiol 1989;63:1107-11.
6. bernard Y, meneveau N, vuillemenot A, magnin D, anguenot T, Schiele F, bassand JP. planimetry of aortic valve area using multiplane transoesophageal echocardiography is not a reliable method for assessing severity of aortic stenosis. Heart 1997;78:68-73.
7. Gorlin R, Gorlin SG. Hydraulic formula for calculation of the area of the stenotic mitral valve, other cardiac valves, and central circulatory shunts. am Heart J. 1951;41:1-29.
8. omran H, Schmidt H, Hackenbroch M, illien S, bernhardt P, von der recke G, et al. Silent and apparent cerebral embolism after retrograde catheterisation of the aortic valve in valvular stenosis: a prospective, randomised study. lancet. 2003;361:1241-6.
9. lotz J, meier C, leppert A, Galanski M. Cardiovascular fow measurement with phase-contrast mr imaging: basic facts and implementation. radiographics. 2002;22:651-71.
10. Friedrich MG, Schulz-menger J, poetsch T, pilz B, Uhlich F, Dietz R. Quantifcation of valvular aortic stenosis by magnetic resonance imaging. am Heart J. 2002;144: 329-34.
11. Caruthers SD, lin SJ, brown p, watkins mp, williams Ta, lehr ka, wickline Sa. practical value of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging for clinical quantifcation of aortic valve stenosis: comparison with echocardiography. Circulation 2003;108:2236-23.
12. pouleur AC, le polain de waroux JB, pasquet A, vancraeynest D, vanoverschelde JL, Gerber BL. planimetric and continuity equation assessment of aortic valve area: head to head comparison between cardiac magnetic resonance and echocardi-ography. J magn reson imaging. 2007;26:1436-43.
13. Galan A, Zoghbi WA, Quinones MA. Determination of severity of valvular aortic stenosis by Doppler echocardiography and relation of fndings to clinical outcome and agreement with hemodynamic measurements determined at cardiac catheterization. Circulation 1985;72:810-5.
14. bland JM, altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. lancet. 1986;1:307-10.
15. Grayburn PA, Smith MD, Harrison MR, Gurley JC, Demaria AN. pivotal role of aortic valve area calculation by the continuity equation for Doppler assessment of aortic stenosis in patients with combined aortic stenosis and regurgitation. am J Cardiol 1988;61:376-81.
16. Schmitt F, Grosu D, mohr C, purdy D, Salem K, Scott KT, Stoeckel b. 3 Tesla mri: successful results with higher feld strengths. radiologe. 2004;44:31-47.
17. Gutberlet M, Noeske R, Schwinge K, Freyhardt P, Felix R, Niendorf T. Comprehensive cardiac magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 Tesla: feasibility and implications for clinical applications. invest radiol. 2006;41:154-67.
18. Tyler DJ, Hudsmith LE, petersen SE, Francis JM, weale P, Neubauer S, et al. Cardiac cine mr-imaging at 3T: FlaSH vs SSFp. J Cardiovasc magn reson. 2006;8:709-15.
19. Gharib AM, Elagha A, pettigrew RI. Cardiac magnetic resonance at high feld: promises and problems. Curr probl Diagn radiol. 2008;37:49-56.
20. lotz J, Doker R, Noeske R, Schuttert M, Felix R, Galanski M, et al. in vitro validation of phase-contrast fow measurements at 3 T in comparison to 1.5 T: precision, accuracy, and signal-to-noise ratios. J magn reson imaging. 2005; 21:604-10.
21. Garcia J, kadem L, larose E, Clavel MA, pibarot P. Comparison between cardiovascular magnetic resonance and transthoracic Doppler echocardiography for the estimation of effective orifce area in aortic stenosis. J Cardiovasc magn reson. 2011;13:25.
22. perez de isla L, Zamorano J, perez de la Yglesia R, Cioccarelli S, almeria C, rodrigo JL, et al. Quantifcation of aortic valve area using three-dimensional echocardiography. rev Esp Cardiol 2008;61:494-500.
23. malyar NM, Schlosser T, buck T, Erbel R. Using cardiac magnetic resonance tomography for assessment of aortic valve area in aortic valve stenosis. Herz. 2006;31:650-7.
24. John AS, Dill T, brandt RR, rau M, ricken W, bachmann G, Hamm CW. magnetic resonance to assess the aortic valve area in aortic stenosis: how does it compare to current diagnostic standards? J am Coll Cardiol 2003;42:519-26.
25. o'brien KR, Gabriel RS, Greiser A, Cowan BR, Young AA, kerr AJ. aortic valve stenotic area calculation from phase contrast cardiovascular magnetic resonance: the importance of short echo time. J Cardiovasc magn reson. 2009;11:49.
26. Tanaka K, makaryus AN, wolff SD. Correlation of aortic valve area obtained by the velocity-encoded phase contrast continuity method to direct planimetry using cardiovascular magnetic resonance. J Cardiovasc magn reson. 2007;9: 799-805. 11.