Key result
Phase-contrast CMR measures AVA with a ~0.08 cm2 bias versus invasive assessment in moderate-to-severe AS.
Why the study?
Inaccuracies of TTE in determining stroke volume and aortic valve area in aortic stenosis call for a more precise, dependable method.
Does phase-contrast cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging accurately determine aortic valve area compared to invasive assessment and TTE in patients with moderate or severe aortic stenosis?
Observational (n=50)
No
Does phase-contrast cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging accurately determine aortic valve area compared to invasive assessment and TTE in patients with moderate or severe aortic stenosis?
PC-CMR provides a reliable, non-invasive method for determining aortic valve area with minimal bias compared to invasive assessment, offering a valuable alternative when TTE is inconclusive.
Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) is the diagnostic routine standard for assessing aortic stenosis (AS). However, its inaccuracies in determining stroke volume (SV) and aortic valve area (AVA) call for a more precise and dependable method. Phase-contrast cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (PC-CMR) is a promising tool to push these boundaries. Thus, the aim of this study was to validate a novel approach based on PC-CMR against the gold-standard of invasive determination of AVA in AS compared to TTE. A total of 50 patients with moderate or severe AS underwent TTE, cardiac catheterization and CMR. AVA via PC-CMR was determined by plotting momentary flow across the valve against flow-velocity. SV by CMR was measured directly via PC-CMR and volumetrically using cine-images. Invasive SV and AVA were determined via Fick-principle and Gorlin-formula, respectively. TTE yielded SV and AVA using continuity equation. Gradients were calculated via the modified Bernoulli-equation. SV by PC-CMR (85 ± 31 ml) correlated strongly (r: 0.73, p < 0.001) with cine-CMR (85 ± 19 ml) without significant bias (lower and upper limits of agreement (LLoA and ULoA): − 41 ml and 44 ml, p = 0.83). In PC-CMR, mean pressure gradient correlated significantly with invasive determination (r: 0.36, p = 0.011). Mean AVA, as determined by PC-CMR during systole (0.78 ± 0.25 cm2), correlated moderately (r: 0.54, p < 0.001) with invasive AVA (0.70 ± 0.23 cm2), resulting in a small bias of 0.08 cm2 (LLoA and ULoA: − 0.36 cm2 and 0.55 cm2, p = 0.017). Inter-methodically, AVA by TTE (0.81 ± 0.23 cm2) compared to invasive determination showed similar correlations (r: 0.58, p < 0.001 with a bias of 0.11 cm2, LLoA and ULoA: − 0.30 and 0.52, p < 0.001) to PC-CMR. Intra- and interobserver reproducibility were excellent for AVA (intraclass-correlation-coefficients of 0.939 and 0.827, respectively). Our novel approach using continuous determination of flow-volumes and velocities with PC-CMR enables simple AVA measurement with no bias to invasive assessment. This approach highlights non-invasive AS grading through CMR, especially when TTE findings are inconclusive.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Troger et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Aortic stenosis (n=50). Phase-contrast cardiovascular magnetic resonance (PC-CMR) vs. Invasive cardiac catheterization was evaluated on Aortic valve area (AVA) (Bias 0.08, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.55, p=0.017).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: