Key result
Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging provides highly reproducible and accurate quantitation of aortic regurgitation compared with echocardiography, and predicts progression to surgery.
Why the study?
Does cardiac magnetic resonance imaging accurately evaluate and quantitate aortic regurgitation compared to echocardiography?
Systematic Review
Does cardiac magnetic resonance imaging accurately evaluate and quantitate aortic regurgitation compared to echocardiography?
CMR is a highly accurate and reproducible modality for quantifying aortic regurgitation and predicting progression to surgery, offering a robust alternative or complement to echocardiography.
This review summaries the utility, application and data supporting use of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) to evaluate and quantitate aortic regurgitation. We systematically searched Medline and PubMed for original research articles published since 2000 that provided data on the quantitation of aortic regurgitation by CMR and identified 11 articles for review. Direct aortic measurements using phase contrast allow quantitation of volumetric flow across the aortic valve and are highly reproducible and accurate compared with echocardiography. However, this technique requires diligence in prescribing the correct imaging planes in the aorta. Volumetric analytic techniques using differences in ventricular volumes are also highly accurate but less than phase contrast techniques and only accurate when concomitant valvular disease is absent. Comparison of both aortic and ventricular data for internal data verification ensures fidelity of aortic regurgitant data. CMR data can be applied to many types of aortic valve regurgitation including combined aortic stenosis with regurgitation, congenital valve diseases and post-transcatheter valve placement. CMR also predicts those patients who progress to surgery with high overall sensitivity and specificity. Future studies of CMR in patients with aortic regurgitation to quantify the incremental benefit over echocardiography as well as prediction of cardiovascular events are warranted.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lee et al. (2017) conducted a systematic review in Aortic regurgitation. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) vs. Echocardiography was evaluated on Quantitation of aortic regurgitation. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging provides highly reproducible and accurate quantitation of aortic regurgitation compared with echocardiography, and predicts progression to surgery.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: