3D three-directional velocity-encoded MR imaging strongly correlated with aortic systolic stroke volume for mitral (r=0.96) and tricuspid (r=0.88) flow (P<0.01), outperforming 2D imaging.
Observational (n=30)
Does 3D three-directional VE MR imaging with retrospective valve tracking improve the accuracy of MV and TV flow quantification compared to 2D one-directional VE MR imaging in healthy subjects and patients with valve regurgitation?
3D three-directional VE MR imaging with retrospective valve tracking provides more accurate quantification of mitral and tricuspid valve flow compared to conventional 2D imaging, even in the presence of regurgitation.
Effect estimate: r = 0.96 (MV flow), r = 0.88 (TV flow)
p-value: p=< .01
PURPOSE: To validate flow assessment performed with three-dimensional (3D) three-directional velocity-encoded (VE) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with retrospective valve tracking and to compare this modality with conventional two-dimensional (2D) one-directional VE MR imaging in healthy subjects and patients with regurgitation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients and volunteers gave informed consent, and local medical ethics committee approval was obtained. Patient data were selected retrospectively and randomly from a database of MR studies obtained between July 2006 and July 2007. The 3D three-directional VE MR images were first validated in vitro and compared with 2D one-directional VE MR images. Mitral valve (MV) and tricuspid valve (TV) flow were assessed in 10 volunteers without valve insufficiency and 20 patients with valve insufficiency, with aortic systolic stroke volume (ASSV) as the reference standard. RESULTS: Phantom validation showed less than 5% error for both techniques. In volunteers, 3D three-directional VE MR images showed no bias for MV or TV flow when compared with ASSV, whereas 2D one-directional VE MR images showed significant bias for MV flow (15% overestimation, P < .01). TV flow showed 25% overestimation; however, this was insignificant because of the high standard deviation. Correlation with ASSV was strong for 3D three-directional VE MR imaging (r = 0.96, P < .01 for MV flow; r = 0.88, P < .01 for TV flow) and between MV and TV flow (r = 0.91, P < .01); however, correlation was weaker for 2D one-directional VE MR imaging (r = 0.80, P < .01 for MV flow; r = 0.22, P = .55 for TV flow) and between MV flow and TV flow (r = 0.34, P = .34). In patients (mean regurgitation fractions of 13% and 10% for MV flow and TV flow, respectively), correlation between MV flow and TV flow for 3D three-directional VE MR imaging was strong (r = 0.97, P < .01). CONCLUSION: Use of 3D three-directional VE MR imaging enables accurate MV and TV flow quantification, even in patients with valve regurgitation.
Westenberg et al. (2008) conducted an observational in Valve insufficiency (n=30). 3D three-directional velocity-encoded MR imaging vs. 2D one-directional velocity-encoded MR imaging was evaluated on Mitral valve and tricuspid valve flow compared with aortic systolic stroke volume (r = 0.96 (MV flow), r = 0.88 (TV flow), p=< .01). 3D three-directional velocity-encoded MR imaging strongly correlated with aortic systolic stroke volume for mitral (r=0.96) and tricuspid (r=0.88) flow (P<0.01), outperforming 2D imaging.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: