Donate Help Contact The AHA Sign In Home
American Heart Association
Circulation
Search: search_blue_button Advanced Search
Circulation. 2003;108:2236-2243
Published online before print October 20, 2003, doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000095268.47282.A1
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
108/18/2236    most recent
01.CIR.0000095268.47282.A1v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Caruthers, S. D.
Right arrow Articles by Wickline, S. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Caruthers, S. D.
Right arrow Articles by Wickline, S. A.
Right arrowPubmed/NCBI databases
Medline Plus Health Information
*MRI Scans
Related Collections
Right arrow Valvular heart disease
Right arrow CT and MRI
Right arrow Echocardiography

(Circulation. 2003;108:2236.)
© 2003 American Heart Association, Inc.


Clinical Investigation and Reports

Practical Value of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Clinical Quantification of Aortic Valve Stenosis

Comparison With Echocardiography

Shelton D. Caruthers, PhD; Shiow Jiuan Lin, MS; Peggy Brown, RDCS; Mary P. Watkins, RT; Todd A. Williams, RT; Katherine A. Lehr, ADN; Samuel A. Wickline, MD

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.

Correspondence to Shelton Caruthers, PhD, Cardiovascular Division, Washington University School of Medicine, Campus Box 8086, 660 South Euclid Ave, St Louis, MO 63110. E-mail saw{at}howdy.wustl.edu

Received October 22, 2002; de novo received June 17, 2003; revision received August 8, 2003; accepted August 13, 2003.

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.


Key Words: magnetic resonance imaging • aorta • stenosis • echocardiography • valves




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
RadiologyHome page
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]


Home page
Circ Cardiovasc ImagingHome page
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]


Home page
CirculationHome page
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]


Home page
J Am Coll CardiolHome page
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]


Home page
Br Med BullHome page
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]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
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]


Home page
Phil Trans R Soc BHome page
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]


Home page
HeartHome page
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]


Home page
J Am Coll CardiolHome page
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]


Home page
J Am Coll CardiolHome page
S. H. Rahimtoola
The year in valvular heart disease
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., January 4, 2005; 45(1): 111 - 122.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Eur Heart JHome page
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]


Home page
J Am Coll CardiolHome page
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]