Cardiovascular magnetic resonance showed a highly significant correlation with angiography for quantifying aortic regurgitation after TAVI (r=0.86, p<0.001), whereas echocardiography underestimated it.
Observational (n=16)
Effect estimate: r=0.86
p-value: p=<0.001
AIMS: Echocardiography may underestimate the degree of paravalvular aortic regurgitation (AR) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) using the Medtronic CoreValve bioprosthesis due to inherent limitations of ultrasound imaging in the evaluation of implanted cardiac prostheses. We aimed to evaluate the accuracy and feasibility of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) in quantifying regurgitant volume (RV) and regurgitant fraction (RF) in patients treated with this bioprosthesis for severe calcific aortic stenosis, and to compare the results with echocardiography and aortography. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study included 16 patients with a mean age of 78.7 years (eight women, eight men) who underwent successful TAVI using Medtronic CoreValve bioprosthesis. AR was evaluated by CMR, echocardiography, and aortography. Angiography was performed immediately after valve implantation. CMR and echocardiography were performed four weeks after valve implantation. There was a highly significant correlation between the CMR-derived and the angiographically-estimated degree of AR (r=0.86, p<0.001). On the other hand, there was only a limited correlation between CMR and echocardiography (r=0.374, p=0.15) as well as angiography and echocardiography (r=0.319, p=0.23) regarding the degree of AR. The weighted kappa for agreement between echocardiography and angiography was 0.14, for agreement between echocardiography and CMR 0.20, and for agreement between angiography and CMR 0.72. Echocardiography underestimated AR by one degree compared to CMR in five patients and 2 degrees in two patients; in six of these, the degree of AR obtained by CMR was similar to angiography. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing TAVI, comparisons between purely quantitative measurements of AR by CMR and qualitative assessment by angiography showed better correlations than those with echocardiography. This suggests that echocardiography may underestimate the degree of AR and CMR in these circumstances has a great potential in reliably measuring the severity of AR in a quantitative manner.
Sherif et al. (Sun,) conducted a observational in Severe calcific aortic stenosis (n=16). Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) vs. Echocardiography and aortography was evaluated on Correlation between CMR-derived and angiographically-estimated degree of aortic regurgitation (r=0.86, p=<0.001). Cardiovascular magnetic resonance showed a highly significant correlation with angiography for quantifying aortic regurgitation after TAVI (r=0.86, p<0.001), whereas echocardiography underestimated it.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: