Grading of aortic stenosis severity: a head-to-head comparison between cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and echocardiography

Abstract

cMR imaging is an accurate alternative for the grading of AS severity. Its use may be recommended especially in patients with poor transthoracic acoustic windows and/or in case of discordance between 2D echocardiographic parameters.

Third generation dual source CT with ultra-high pitch protocol for TAVI planning and coronary tree assessment: feasibility, image quality and diagnostic performance

“…Aortic stenosis is the most prevalent valve heart disease in developed western countries [1]. Trans-catheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a safe treatment for patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis [2,3].…”

The Brazilian Society of Cardiology and Brazilian Society of Exercise and Sports Medicine Updated Guidelines for Sports and Exercise Cardiology - 2019

“…Cardiac MRI is useful for patients with an unfavorable transthoracic window and/or when there is disagreement between two-dimensional echocardiographic parameters. 217 Computed tomography of the heart can be used to quantify valve calcification. A calcium score of less than 700 Agatston units excludes severe aortic stenosis and has a high negative predictive value.…”

Aortic valvular imaging with cardiovascular magnetic resonance: seeking for comprehensiveness

“…Continuity equation method offers an indirect AVA estimation, based on the principle of conservation of the mass, which uses the quantitative analysis of the transvalvular aortic flows through phase contrast sequences (PC-MRI) acquired in the valve plane (AVA = stroke vol/velocity-time integral at the aortic flow velocity peak). 33 Multimodality comparisons showed no differences between AVA measurements obtained by CMR versus 2D TTE, three-dimensional (3D) TTE, Doppler echocardiography, TEE and ICA 29,34,35 whereas both 2D TTE and ICA underestimated valve annulus dimensions compared to CMR (p < 0.01). 29 Moreover, the sensitivity and specificity of CMR to detect AVA ≤0.80 cm 2 , compared with catheterization, were 78 and 89%, which are higher than TEE (70 and 70%) and TTE (74 and 67%), 34 respectively.…”