Direct and indirect quantification of mitral regurgitation with cardiovascular magnetic resonance, and the effect of heart rate variability
- 192 Downloads
Quantifying mitral regurgitation with cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) involves indirect calculation, which increases the potential for error. We examined a direct quantification method using velocity mapping across the mitral valve, which may be less susceptible to error, and also examined the effect of heart rate variability on both techniques.
Materials and Methods
Fifty-five patients underwent mitral regurgitation quantification with CMR by the direct method and two indirect methods—the standard method subtracting aortic flow (assessed by velocity mapping) from left ventricular stroke volume (assessed by cine imaging) and the ‘volumetric’ method using the difference between left and right ventricular stroke volumes. The methods were compared using Bland–Altman analyses.
Patients with low heart rate variability (beat-to-beat variability <30 bpm; n = 44) showed good agreement between direct and indirect methods (95% confidence limits for the difference between measurements ±16.7ml/11.8% regurgitant fraction for the standard method; ±21.7ml/15.4% for the volumetric method), with no significant offset (mean difference +2.8 ml/+1.9% for standard and +3.1ml/+2.3% for volumetric methods). Patients with high heart rate variability (>30 bpm; n = 11) showed poor agreement between techniques (95% limits ±80.3ml/56.0%) and significant offset (mean difference +31.7ml/+19.5%).
Direct quantification of mitral regurgitation with CMR compares well with indirect methods for patients with low heart rate variability, involves fewer calculations and is quick. All CMR measurements that use velocity mapping may be inaccurate, however, in patients with highly irregular rhythms and should be avoided in these patients.
KeywordsMitral regurgitation Magnetic resonance imaging Blood flow velocity Phase-contrast imaging
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Kanu C, de Leon AC, Jr., Faxon DP, Freed MD, Gaasch WH, Lytle BW, Nishimura RA, O’Gara PT, O’Rourke RA, Otto CM, Shah PM, Shanewise JS, Smith SC, Jr., Jacobs AK, Adams CD, Anderson JL, Antman EM, Faxon DP, Fuster V, Halperin JL, Hiratzka LF, Hunt SA, Lytle BW, Nishimura R, Page RL, Riegel B (2006) ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (writing committee to revise the 1998 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease): developed in collaboration with the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists: endorsed by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Circulation 114:e84–231Google Scholar
- 5.Zoghbi WA, Enriquez-Sarano M, Foster E, Grayburn PA, Kraft CD, Levine RA, Nihoyannopoulos P, Otto CM, Quinones MA, Rakowski H, Stewart WJ, Waggoner A, Weissman NJ (2003) Recommendations for evaluation of the severity of native valvular regurgitation with two-dimensional and doppler echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 16: 777–802CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.Marsan NA, Westenberg JJ, Ypenburg C, Delgado V, van Bommel RJ, Roes SD, Nucifora G, van der Geest RJ, de Roos A, Reiber JC, Schalij MJ, Bax JJ (2009) Quantification of functional mitral regurgitation by real-time 3D echocardiography: comparison with 3D velocity-encoded cardiac magnetic resonance. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2: 1245–1252CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Westenberg JJ, Doornbos J, Versteegh MI, Bax JJ, van der Geest RJ, de Roos A, Dion RA, Reiber JH (2005) Accurate quantitation of regurgitant volume with MRI in patients selected for mitral valve repair. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 27:462–466 discussion 467Google Scholar
- 21.Hundley WG, Meshack BM, Willett DL, Sayad DE, Lange RA, Willard JE, Landau C, Hillis LD, Peshock RM (1996) Comparison of quantitation of left ventricular volume, ejection fraction, and cardiac output in patients with atrial fibrillation by cine magnetic resonance imaging versus invasive measurements. Am J Cardiol 78: 1119–1123CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar