Why the study?
Does cardiac magnetic resonance tomography accurately assess aortic valve area compared to echocardiography in patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis?
Does cardiac magnetic resonance tomography accurately assess aortic valve area compared to echocardiography in patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis?
CMR planimetry shows good agreement with TEE for assessing aortic valve area in patients with aortic stenosis, suggesting it could serve as a noninvasive alternative.
BACKGROUND: Cardiac magnetic resonance tomography (CMR) is a new imaging technique capable of imaging the aortic valve with high resolution. We assessed the aortic valve area (AVA) in patients with aortic stenosis (AS) using CMR and compared the results to those obtained by transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). METHODS: Forty-two patients (36% female, 71 +/- 8 years) symptomatic for AS underwent TTE followed by TEE to determine the AVA; the continuity equation was used with TTE and the planimetry technique with TEE. In 26 of these patients, the AVA was additionally obtained by CMR planimetry. RESULTS: The mean AVA derived by TTE, TEE and CMR were 0.74 +/- 0.27, 0.87 +/- 25 and 0.97 +/- 0.30 cm(2), respectively. The mean absolute differences in AVA were 0.13 +/- 0.19 cm(2) for TTE vs. TEE, 0.21 +/- 0.25 cm(2) for TTE vs. CMR and 0.05 +/- 0.11 cm(2) for CMR vs. TEE. CONCLUSION: There is a good agreement between CMR and the echocardiographic determination of the AVA. If multicenter, large-scale studies confirm these observations, CMR could serve as a noninvasive alternative to TTE/TEE for the assessment of AVA in AS.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Malyar et al. (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: