3D three-directional velocity-encoded MR imaging strongly correlated with aortic systolic stroke volume for mitral (r=0.96) and tricuspid (r=0.88) flow (P<0.01), outperforming 2D imaging.
Observational (n=30)
Valve insufficiency (n=30)
3D three-directional velocity-encoded MR imaging vs 2D one-directional velocity-encoded MR imaging
Mitral valve and tricuspid valve flow compared with aortic systolic stroke volume — r = 0.96 (MV flow), r = 0.88 (TV flow), p=< .01
Effect estimate: r = 0.96 (MV flow), r = 0.88 (TV flow)
p-value: p=< .01
PURPOSE: To validate flow assessment performed with three-dimensional (3D) three-directional velocity-encoded (VE) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with retrospective valve tracking and to compare this modality with conventional two-dimensional (2D) one-directional VE MR imaging in healthy subjects and patients with regurgitation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients and volunteers gave informed consent, and local medical ethics committee approval was obtained. Patient data were selected retrospectively and randomly from a database of MR studies obtained between July 2006 and July 2007. The 3D three-directional VE MR images were first validated in vitro and compared with 2D one-directional VE MR images. Mitral valve (MV) and tricuspid valve (TV) flow were assessed in 10 volunteers without valve insufficiency and 20 patients with valve insufficiency, with aortic systolic stroke volume (ASSV) as the reference standard. RESULTS: Phantom validation showed less than 5% error for both techniques. In volunteers, 3D three-directional VE MR images showed no bias for MV or TV flow when compared with ASSV, whereas 2D one-directional VE MR images showed significant bias for MV flow (15% overestimation, P < .01). TV flow showed 25% overestimation; however, this was insignificant because of the high standard deviation. Correlation with ASSV was strong for 3D three-directional VE MR imaging (r = 0.96, P < .01 for MV flow; r = 0.88, P < .01 for TV flow) and between MV and TV flow (r = 0.91, P < .01); however, correlation was weaker for 2D one-directional VE MR imaging (r = 0.80, P < .01 for MV flow; r = 0.22, P = .55 for TV flow) and between MV flow and TV flow (r = 0.34, P = .34). In patients (mean regurgitation fractions of 13% and 10% for MV flow and TV flow, respectively), correlation between MV flow and TV flow for 3D three-directional VE MR imaging was strong (r = 0.97, P < .01). CONCLUSION: Use of 3D three-directional VE MR imaging enables accurate MV and TV flow quantification, even in patients with valve regurgitation.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Jos J.M. Westenberg
Cardiac Imaging
Stijntje D. Roes
Leiden University Medical Center
Nina Ajmone Marsan
Cardiac Imaging
Radiology
Leiden University Medical Center
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Westenberg et al. (Sat,) conducted a observational in Valve insufficiency (n=30). 3D three-directional velocity-encoded MR imaging vs. 2D one-directional velocity-encoded MR imaging was evaluated on Mitral valve and tricuspid valve flow compared with aortic systolic stroke volume (r = 0.96 (MV flow), r = 0.88 (TV flow), p=< .01). 3D three-directional velocity-encoded MR imaging strongly correlated with aortic systolic stroke volume for mitral (r=0.96) and tricuspid (r=0.88) flow (P<0.01), outperforming 2D imaging.
synapsesocial.com/papers/6a1913621d64db491ad31f13 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2492080146