301 Accurate quantification of aortic regurgitation: comparison of MRI with doppler echocardiography

Sekar, Meera; Carr, James; Berliner, Jennifer; Mikati, Issam

doi:10.1186/1532-429x-10-s1-a104

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Others have developed strategies to improve the diagnostic certainty for AR [41,42], suggesting that the assessment should rely on multiple MRI parametersand MRI-specific thresholds. Another recommendation to increase the diagnostic certainty in patients with complex flow is to perform the PC-MRI measurement at a position with less blood flow complexity, preferably at the aortic valve plane level, avoiding the turbulent and accelerated flow regions secondary to the valve leaflets [43]. However, there are other difficulties associated with this method and a better alternative may be to assess the AR severity using the indirect quantification method (LVSV-PuSV) [27], used as internal reference in the present study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Importance of complex blood flow in the assessment of aortic regurgitation severity using phase contrast magnetic resonance imaging

Truedsson

Polte

Gao

et al. 2021

Int J Cardiovasc Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to investigate if and how complex flow influences the assessment of aortic regurgitation (AR) using phase contrast MRI in patients with chronic AR. Patients with moderate (n = 15) and severe (n = 28) chronic AR were categorized into non-complex flow (NCF) or complex flow (CF) based on the presence of systolic backward flow volume. Phase contrast MRI was performed repeatedly at the level of the sinotubular junction (Ao1) and 1 cm distal to the sinotubular junction (Ao2). All AR patients were assessed to have non-severe AR or severe AR (cut-off values: regurgitation volume (RVol) ≥ 60 ml and regurgitation fraction (RF) ≥ 50%) in both measurement positions. The repeatability was significantly lower, i.e. variation was larger, for patients with CF than for NCF (≥ 12 ± 12% versus ≥ 6 ± 4%, P ≤ 0.03). For patients with CF, the repeatability was significantly lower at Ao2 compared to Ao1 (≥ 21 ± 20% versus ≥ 12 ± 12%, P ≤ 0.02), as well as the assessment of regurgitation (RVol: 42 ± 34 ml versus 54 ± 42 ml, P < 0.001; RF: 30 ± 18% versus 34 ± 16%, P = 0.01). This was not the case for patients with NCF. The frequency of patients that changed in AR grade from severe to non-severe when the position of the measurement changed from Ao1 to Ao2 was higher for patients with CF compared to NCF (RVol: 5/26 (19%) versus 1/17 (6%), P = 0.2; RF: 4/26 (15%) versus 0/17 (0%), P = 0.09). Our study shows that complex flow influences the quantification of chronic AR, which can lead to underestimation of AR severity when using PC-MRI.

show abstract