Key result
Cardiac magnetic resonance showed high reproducibility for quantifying mitral regurgitation, yielding comparable but typically lower regurgitant volumes than two-dimensional echocardiography.
Why the study?
Does cardiac magnetic resonance imaging provide reproducible and comparable quantification of mitral regurgitation compared to two-dimensional echocardiography?
Systematic Review
Does cardiac magnetic resonance imaging provide reproducible and comparable quantification of mitral regurgitation compared to two-dimensional echocardiography?
CMR provides highly reproducible quantification of mitral regurgitation, though values are typically lower than those obtained by 2D echocardiography, highlighting the need for standardized approaches.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Clinicians should interpret CMR regurgitant volumes cautiously against echocardiography thresholds; confirms high reproducibility but challenges direct modality interchangeability.
Krieger et al. (2016) conducted a systematic review in Mitral regurgitation. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) vs. Two-dimensional echocardiography was evaluated on Quantification of mitral regurgitation (mitral regurgitation fraction and regurgitant volume). Cardiac magnetic resonance showed high reproducibility for quantifying mitral regurgitation, yielding comparable but typically lower regurgitant volumes than two-dimensional echocardiography.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: