Key result
CMR provides mitral valve area measurements highly correlated with 2D TTE without significant differences.
Why the study?
Assessing mitral stenosis severity by measuring mitral valve area is essential for management, but comparative data between cardiovascular magnetic resonance and two-dimensional echocardiography planimetry were needed.
Does cardiovascular magnetic resonance provide comparable planimetric mitral valve area measurements to two-dimensional echocardiography in patients with symptomatic rheumatic mitral stenosis?
Observational (n=40)
Single-blind
No
Does cardiovascular magnetic resonance provide comparable planimetric mitral valve area measurements to two-dimensional echocardiography in patients with symptomatic rheumatic mitral stenosis?
Mean Difference: 0.012
Absolute Event Rate: 1.2% vs 1.2%
p-value: p=0.842
CMR is a reliable, non-invasive alternative to 2D echocardiography for measuring mitral valve area in patients with rheumatic mitral stenosis.
CMR may offer a comparable noninvasive option for mitral valve area in rheumatic stenosis; leaves open prospective validation before practice change.
Background: Rheumatic heart disease which is a result of rheumatic fever is still a major health problem in developing countries. Rheumatic mitral stenosis (MS) is the commonest delayed valvular affection as a consequence of rheumatic fever. The assessment of MS severity by measuring mitral valve area (MVA) is very essential for patient management. Different imaging modalities are available for MVA assessment including echocardiography and cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). Objectives: The aim of this study is to compare the planimetric MVA between CMR and two dimensional echocardiography in MS patients. Patients and methods: A forty adult patients with symptomatic mitral stenosis were included in the study. Other significant valvular lesions, atrial fibrillation, poor echocardiographic window, contraindications to CMR, and NYHA IV were excluded from the study. All patients were assessed by 2D echocardiography and CMR for MVA measurement. Results: The mean 2D TTE MVA was 1.2±0.26 cm2 , while the mean CMR MVA 1.2±0.28 cm2 . No significant statistical difference was found between both methods (P value 0.842) with a very strong correlation between both methods (r = 0.93 and p-value < 0.0001). The mean difference of MVA between the two methods was 0.012 cm2 . Conclusion: CMR is a non-invasive imaging modality that provides MVA measurement and is a reliable method in the diagnosis of MS patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A 2022 study conducted an observational in Rheumatic Mitral Stenosis (n=40). Cardiac Magnetic Resonance (CMR) vs. 2D Echocardiography was evaluated on Planimetric Mitral Valve Area (MVA) (mean difference 0.012 cm2, p=0.842). Cardiac magnetic resonance provided mitral valve area measurements that were highly correlated with 2D echocardiography (r = 0.93, p < 0.0001) with no significant difference between the methods.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: