Key result
Cardiac magnetic resonance showed high agreement with 2D echocardiography for mitral valve area (pre-valvuloplasty 1.16 vs 1.16 cm2), but significantly underestimated trans-mitral velocity (P<0.001).
Why the study?
Experience with CMR in mitral stenosis is limited compared to mitral regurgitation.
Does cardiac magnetic resonance imaging provide comparable assessment of mitral stenosis before and after percutaneous balloon valvuloplasty compared to 2D and 3D echocardiography in symptomatic patients?
Comparison
CMR vs 2D and 3D TTE and 3D TEE
Design
Prospective observational study
Authors
Loading...
Caution advised on CMR for trans-mitral velocity; leaves open its role for mitral valve area assessment.
Observational (n=20)
Does cardiac magnetic resonance imaging provide comparable assessment of mitral stenosis before and after percutaneous balloon valvuloplasty compared to 2D and 3D echocardiography in symptomatic patients?
CMR provides a comprehensive and acceptable alternative to echocardiography for assessing mitral valve area and left atrial volume in patients with rheumatic mitral stenosis undergoing PBMV, though it underestimates trans-mitral gradients.
Abdelaziz et al. (2020) conducted an observational in Rheumatic mitral stenosis (n=20). Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) vs. 2D and 3D transthoracic and 3D transesophageal echocardiography was evaluated on Mitral valve area (MVA). Cardiac magnetic resonance showed high agreement with 2D echocardiography for mitral valve area (pre-valvuloplasty 1.16 vs 1.16 cm2), but significantly underestimated trans-mitral velocity (P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: