Key result
Aortic root angiography showed only moderate correlation with cardiac magnetic resonance for assessing aortic regurgitation severity after TAVI (r=0.41 for volume, r=0.42 for fraction; p<0.01).
Why the study?
Does aortic root angiography accurately grade aortic regurgitation severity compared to cardiac magnetic resonance in patients after TAVI?
Observational (n=69)
Does aortic root angiography accurately grade aortic regurgitation severity compared to cardiac magnetic resonance in patients after TAVI?
Aortic root angiography shows only moderate correlation with CMR for grading aortic regurgitation severity after TAVI, highlighting the potential need for multimodality imaging in uncertain cases.
Angiography detects moderate-severe AR with only 71% sensitivity versus CMR after TAVI; leaves open optimal multimodality strategy for post-TAVI AR assessment.
AIMS: Aortic regurgitation (AR) is common after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Intraprocedural assessment of AR relies on aortic root angiography. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) phase-contrast mapping of the ascending aorta provides accurate AR quantification. This study evaluated the accuracy of AR grading by aortic root angiography after TAVI in comparison to CMR phase-contrast velocity mapping. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 69 patients with TAVI for severe aortic stenosis, post-procedural AR was determined by aortic root angiography with visual assessment according to the Sellers classification and by CMR using phase-contrast velocity mapping for analysis of AR volume and fraction. Spearman's correlation coefficient showed a moderate correlation between angiographic analysis of AR grade and CMR-derived AR volume (r=0.41; p<0.01) as well as AR fraction (r=0.42; p<0.01). There was significant overlap between the angiographic Sellers classes compared to CMR-derived AR fractions. Aortic root angiography with cut-off Sellers grade ≥2 had a sensitivity of 71% and a specificity of 98% to detect AR graded as moderate to severe or severe as defined by CMR. CONCLUSIONS: There is only a moderate correlation between aortic root angiography and CMR in the classification of AR severity after TAVI. Alternative imaging including multimodality imaging as well as haemodynamic analysis should therefore be considered for intraprocedural AR assessment and guidance of TAVI procedure in cases of uncertainty in AR grading.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Frick et al. (2016) conducted an observational in Severe aortic stenosis post-TAVI (n=69). Aortic root angiography vs. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) was evaluated on Correlation between angiographic analysis of AR grade and CMR-derived AR volume and fraction (r=0.41 (volume), r=0.42 (fraction), p=<0.01). Aortic root angiography showed only moderate correlation with cardiac magnetic resonance for assessing aortic regurgitation severity after TAVI (r=0.41 for volume, r=0.42 for fraction; p<0.01).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: