on October 20, 2003
Published online before print October 20, 2003, doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000095268.47282.A1
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Submitted on October 22, 2002
From Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Laboratories (S.D.C., S.J.L., P.B., M.P.W., T.A.W., K.A.L., S.A.W.), Barnes-Jewish Hospital at Washington University School of Medicine; the Department of Biomedical Engineering (S.D.C., S.A.W.), Washington University, St Louis, Mo; and Philips Medical Systems (S.D.C.), Best, Netherlands. * To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: saw{at}howdy.wustl.edu.
Background--Valvular pathology can be analyzed quickly and accurately through the use of Doppler ultrasound. For aortic stenosis, the continuity equation approach with Doppler velocity-time integral (VTI) data is by far the most commonly used clinical method of quantification. In view of the emerging popularity of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) as a routine clinical imaging tool, the purposes of this study were to define the reliability of velocity-encoded CMR as a routine method for quantifying stenotic aortic valve area, to compare this method with the accepted standard, and to evaluate its reproducibility. Methods and Results--Patients (n=24) with aortic stenosis (ranging from 0.5 to 1.8 cm2) were imaged with CMR and echocardiography. Velocity-encoded CMR was used to obtain velocity information in the aorta and left ventricular outflow tract. From this flow data, pressure gradients were estimated by means of the modified Bernoulli equation, and VTIs were calculated to estimate aortic valve orifice dimensions by means of the continuity equation. The correlation coefficients between modalities for pressure gradients were r=0.83 for peak and r=0.87 for mean. The measurements of VTI correlated well, leading to an overall strong correlation between modalities for the estimation of valve dimension (r=0.83, by means of the identified best approach). For 5 patients, the CMR examination was repeated using the best approach. The repeat calculations of valve size correlated well (r=0.94). Conclusions--Velocity-encoded CMR can be used as a reliable, user-friendly tool to evaluate stenotic aortic valves. The measurements of pressure gradients, VTIs, and the valve dimension correlate well with the accepted standard of Doppler ultrasound.
Revised on August 8, 2003
Accepted on August 13, 2003
Practical Value of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Clinical Quantification of Aortic Valve Stenosis. Comparison With Echocardiography
Shelton D. Caruthers PhD*,
Key words: magnetic resonance imaging • aorta • stenosis • echocardiography • valves
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  K. Muellerleile, L. Baholli, M. Groth, A. A. Barmeyer, K. Koopmann, R. Ventura, R. Koester, G. Adam, S. Willems, and G. K. Lund Interventricular Mechanical Dyssynchrony: Quantification with Velocity-encoded MR Imaging Radiology, November 1, 2009; 253(2): 364 - 371. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 F. von Knobelsdorff-Brenkenhoff, A. Rudolph, R. Wassmuth, S. Bohl, E. E. Buschmann, H. Abdel-Aty, R. Dietz, and J. Schulz-Menger Feasibility of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance to Assess the Orifice Area of Aortic Bioprostheses Circ Cardiovasc Imaging, September 1, 2009; 2(5): 397 - 404. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. J. Cawley, J. H. Maki, and C. M. Otto Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Valvular Heart Disease: Technique and Validation Circulation, January 27, 2009; 119(3): 468 - 478. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. P. Dal-Bianco, B. K. Khandheria, F. Mookadam, F. Gentile, and P. P. Sengupta Management of Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., October 14, 2008; 52(16): 1279 - 1292. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. De Mozzi, U. G. Longo, G. Galanti, and N. Maffulli Bicuspid aortic valve: a literature review and its impact on sport activity Br. Med. Bull., March 1, 2008; 85(1): 63 - 85. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Baltes, M. S. Hansen, J. Tsao, S. Kozerke, R. Rezavi, E. M. Pedersen, and P. Boesiger Determination of Peak Velocity in Stenotic Areas: Echocardiography versus k-t SENSE Accelerated MR Fourier Velocity Encoding Radiology, December 1, 2007; 246(1): 249 - 257. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G.-Z. Yang, R. Merrifield, S. Masood, and P. J Kilner Flow and myocardial interaction: an imaging perspective Phil Trans R Soc B, August 29, 2007; 362(1484): 1329 - 1341. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Goland, A. Trento, K. Iida, L. S C Czer, M. De Robertis, T. Z Naqvi, K. Tolstrup, T. Akima, H. Luo, and R. J Siegel Assessment of aortic stenosis by three-dimensional echocardiography: an accurate and novel approach Heart, July 1, 2007; 93(7): 801 - 807. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Djavidani, K. Debl, M. Lenhart, J. Seitz, C. Paetzel, F. X. Schmid, W. R. Nitz, S. Feuerbach, G. Riegger, and A. Luchner Planimetry of Mitral Valve Stenosis by Magnetic Resonance Imaging J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., June 21, 2005; 45(12): 2048 - 2053. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. H. Rahimtoola The year in valvular heart disease J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., January 4, 2005; 45(1): 111 - 122. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. J. Pennell, U. P. Sechtem, C. B. Higgins, W. J. Manning, G. M. Pohost, F. E. Rademakers, A. C. van Rossum, L. J. Shaw, and E. K. Yucel Clinical indications for cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR): Consensus Panel report Eur. Heart J., November 1, 2004; 25(21): 1940 - 1965. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. J. Lin, P. A. Brown, M. P. Watkins, T. A. Williams, K. A. Lehr, W. Liu, G. M. Lanza, S. A. Wickline, and S. D. Caruthers Quantification of stenotic mitral valve area with magnetic resonance imaging and comparison with Doppler ultrasound J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., July 7, 2004; 44(1): 133 - 137. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|