Assessment of mitral regurgitation by 3-dimensional proximal flow convergence using magnetic resonance imaging: comparison with echo-Doppler
To test the feasibility of assessing mitral regurgitation (MR) severity using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) 4D velocity vectors to quantify regurgitant volume (RVol) by analysis of the proximal flow convergence, compared to Doppler based proximal isovelocity surface area (PISA) and CMR volume-based methods. In a prospectively designed study, 27 patients with various grades of MR underwent CMR and echo-Doppler on the same day. By CMR, multiple slices were obtained parallel to the mitral valve by phase-contrast imaging, using 3D velocity vectors, as well as short-axis cine images for left and right ventricular volume measurements. Using dedicated software developed in our laboratory, the perimeter of the proximal flow convergence region was semi-automatically measured for each temporal phase, and for each short-axis slice. The CMR-PISA RVol was calculated as the sum of PISA perimeters throughout systole, multiplied by slice width. For comparison, CMR-volumetric RVol was calculated by 2 methods: Volumetric (difference between left and right ventricular stroke volumes) and Flow-based (stroke volume -aortic flow). Echo-PISA RVol was calculated by echo-Doppler based PISA method. RVol by CMR-PISA correlated highly with echo-PISA (r = 0.87) and with CMR-volumetric (r = 0.86) and CMR-flow (r = 0.72). For comparison Doppler-RVol and CMR-volume-based RVol had r = 0.83. On average CMR-PISA was 16 ± 25 ml less than echo-PISA, but 12 ± 22 ml larger than CMR-volumetric RVol. The observed 3D shape of the PISA envelope by 4D-CMR resembled a hemiellipsoid rather than a hemisphere. This feasibility study suggests that CMR-based 4D-PISA may be able to assess MR severity quantitatively without any geometric assumptions.
KeywordsValve disease Regurgitant volume Computer-aided analysis Proximal isovelocity surface area
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethics committee approval was given by the Rambam Helsinki Committee (RMB-11-0282).
All patients signed informed consent before entering the study.
- 1.Levine RA, Hagege AA, Judge DP, Padala M, Dal-Bianco JP, Aikawa E, Beaudoin J, Bischoff J, Bouatia-Naji N, Bruneval P, Butcher JT, Carpentier A, Chaput M, Chester AH, Clusel C, Delling FN, Dietz HC, Dina C, Durst R, Fernandez-Friera L, Handschumacher MD, Jensen MO, Jeunemaitre XP, Le Marec H, Le Tourneau T, Markwald RR, Merot J, Messas E, Milan DP, Neri T, Norris RA, Peal D, Perrocheau M, Probst V, Puceat M, Rosenthal N, Solis J, Schott JJ, Schwammenthal E, Slaugenhaupt SA, Song JK, Yacoub MH (2015) Mitral valve disease–morphology and mechanisms. Nat Rev Cardiol 12(12):689–710. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrcardio.2015.161 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 3.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(7):777–802. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0894-7317(03)00335-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 7.Buchner S, Debl K, Poschenrieder F, Feuerbach S, Riegger GA, Luchner A, Djavidani B (2008) Cardiovascular magnetic resonance for direct assessment of anatomic regurgitant orifice in mitral regurgitation. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 1(2):148–155. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.107.753103 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.Hodnett PA, Glielmi CB, Davarpanah AH, Scanlon TG, Ward E, Collins JD, Weale PJ, Carr JC (2012) Inline directionally independent peak velocity evaluation reduces error in peak antegrade velocity estimation in patients referred for cardiac valvular assessment. AJR 198(2):344–350CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.Matsumura Y, Saracino G, Sugioka K, Tran H, Greenberg NL, Wada N, Toyono M, Fukuda S, Hozumi T, Thomas JD, Yoshikawa J, Yoshiyama M, Shiota T (2008) Determination of regurgitant orifice area with the use of a new three-dimensional flow convergence geometric assumption in functional mitral regurgitation. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 21(11):1251–1256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.echo.2008.09.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 11.Schmidt FP, Gniewosz T, Jabs A, Munzel T, Hink U, Lancellotti P, von Bardeleben RS (2014) Usefulness of 3D-PISA as compared to guideline endorsed parameters for mitral regurgitation quantification. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 30(8):1501–1508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-014-0496-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Thavendiranathan P, Liu S, Datta S, Rajagopalan S, Ryan T, Igo SR, Jackson MS, Little SH, De Michelis N, Vannan MA (2013) Quantification of chronic functional mitral regurgitation by automated 3-dimensional peak and integrated proximal isovelocity surface area and stroke volume techniques using real-time 3-dimensional volume color Doppler echocardiography: in vitro and clinical validation. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 6(1):125–133. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.112.980383 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.Yosefy C, Levine RA, Solis J, Vaturi M, Handschumacher MD, Hung J (2007) Proximal flow convergence region as assessed by real-time 3-dimensional echocardiography: challenging the hemispheric assumption. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 20(4):389–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.echo.2006.09.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.Suinesiaputra A, Bluemke DA, Cowan BR, Friedrich MG, Kramer CM, Kwong R, Plein S, Schulz-Menger J, Westenberg JJ, Young AA, Nagel E (2015) Quantification of LV function and mass by cardiovascular magnetic resonance: multi-center variability and consensus contours. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 17:63. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12968-015-0170-9 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 17.Myerson SG, d’Arcy J, Christiansen JP, Dobson LE, Mohiaddin R, Francis JM, Prendergast B, Greenwood JP, Karamitsos TD, Neubauer S (2016) Determination of clinical outcome in mitral regurgitation with cardiovascular magnetic resonance quantification. Circulation 133(23):2287–2296. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.017888 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.Uretsky S, Gillam L, Lang R, Chaudhry FA, Argulian E, Supariwala A, Gurram S, Jain K, Subero M, Jang JJ, Cohen R, Wolff SD (2015) Discordance between echocardiography and MRI in the assessment of mitral regurgitation severity: a prospective multicenter trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 65(11):1078–1088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2014.12.047 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.Aplin M, Kyhl K, Bjerre J, Ihlemann N, Greenwood JP, Plein S, Uddin A, Tonder N, Host NB, Ahlstrom MG, Hove J, Hassager C, Iversen K, Vejlstrup NG, Lav Madsen P (2016) Cardiac remodelling and function with primary mitral valve insufficiency studied by magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 17(8):863–870. https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jev321 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Dyverfeldt P, Bissell M, Barker AJ, Bolger AF, Carlhall CJ, Ebbers T, Francios CJ, Frydrychowicz A, Geiger J, Giese D, Hope MD, Kilner PJ, Kozerke S, Myerson S, Neubauer S, Wieben O, Markl M (2015) 4D flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance consensus statement. J Cardiovasc Magn Res 17:72. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12968-015-0174-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar