Key result
CMR provided the most accurate aortic annulus measurements in vitro, while MSCT and 3DE were reasonable in vivo alternatives that slightly overestimated and underestimated dimensions, respectively.
Why the study?
Does CMR provide more accurate aortic annulus measurements compared to 3DE and MSCT in in vitro and in vivo models?
Population
30 calcium-containing rings, 28 explanted human cadaveric hearts with varying degrees of aortic valve…
Comparison
Aortic annulus measurement using… vs Cardiac magnetic resonance and actual physical…
Design
Other, Independent observers, two experts for each modality, performed…
Authors
Loading...
Clinicians may adjust for MSCT over- and 3DE underestimation in vivo; leaves open CMR's impact on TAVR outcomes.
Observational (n=15)
Does CMR provide more accurate aortic annulus measurements compared to 3DE and MSCT in in vitro and in vivo models?
CMR provides the most accurate in vitro measurements of the aortic annulus, while MSCT and 3DE are reasonable in vivo alternatives that slightly overestimate and underestimate dimensions, respectively.
Tsang et al. (2012) conducted an observational in Clinical indication for MSCT (n=15). 3DE, MSCT, and CMR vs. True ring dimensions / CMR was evaluated on Bias and intraclass correlation coefficient for accuracy of imaging measurements. CMR provided the most accurate aortic annulus measurements in vitro, while MSCT and 3DE were reasonable in vivo alternatives that slightly overestimated and underestimated dimensions, respectively.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: