Key result
CMR outperforms echo in quantifying paravalvular regurgitation and LV reverse remodeling in biological aortic valves.
Why the study?
Patients with biological aortic valves require lifelong imaging follow-up, and the potential role of CMR in situations of inconclusive or equivocal echocardiography needs evaluation.
Does cardiac magnetic resonance imaging improve the assessment of prosthetic valve function and myocardial structural changes in patients with biological aortic valves?
Does cardiac magnetic resonance imaging improve the assessment of prosthetic valve function and myocardial structural changes in patients with biological aortic valves?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
CMR is a valuable complementary tool to echocardiography for assessing biological aortic valves, particularly for quantifying complex aortic regurgitation and evaluating myocardial fibrosis and reverse remodeling.
Patients with biological aortic valves (following either surgical aortic valve replacement [SAVR] or trans catheter aortic valve implantation [TAVI]) require lifelong follow-up with an imaging modality to assess prosthetic valve function and dysfunction. Echocardiography is currently the first-line imaging modality to assess biological aortic valves. In this review, we discuss the potential role of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) as an additional imaging modality in situations of inconclusive or equivocal echocardiography. Planimetry of the prosthetic orifice can theoretically be measured, as well as the effective orifice area, with potential limitations, such as CMR valve-related artefacts and calcifications in degenerated prostheses. The true benefit of CMR is its ability to accurately quantify aortic regurgitation (paravalvular and intra-valvular) with a direct and reproducible method independent of regurgitant jet morphology to accurately assess reverse remodelling and non-invasively detect focal and interstitial diffuse myocardial fibrosis. Following SAVR or TAVI for aortic stenosis, interstitial diffuse fibrosis can regress, accompanied by structural and functional improvement that CMR can accurately assess.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vermès et al. (2023) conducted a review in Biological aortic valves (following SAVR or TAVI). Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) vs. Echocardiography was evaluated. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging serves as a complementary tool to echocardiography for assessing biological aortic valves, offering superior accuracy in quantifying paravalvular aortic regurgitation and evaluating left ventricular reverse remodeling.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: