Advertisement

Valvular Heart Disease Assessment by CMR

  • Patrycja Z. Galazka
  • Raymond Y. KwongEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Contemporary Cardiology book series (CONCARD)

Abstract

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) has exceptional capability of performing comprehensive evaluation of simple and complex valvular heart disease. CMR has emerged as an alternative imaging modality without ionizing radiation that is applicable in patients with valvular heart disease. An important value of CMR is its ability to provide many imaging planes, which can be tailored to individual anatomy. CMR can provide quantitative measure of valvular stenosis and regurgitation, which is comparable to echocardiography. An additional advantage of CMR for assessment of valvular heart disease is its true and reproducible measurements of ventricular volumes and function, which can guide a clinician regarding appropriate timing of surgery. Furthermore, CMR is able to evaluate great vessel anatomy and the presence of the myocardial scar, which can be of prognostic significance. Therefore, CMR is an attractive alternative or complimentary modality for thorough assessment of valvular pathology and can significantly guide the clinician and advance patient’s care.

Keywords

CMR Valvular disease Valvular stenosis Valvular regurgitation 

References

  1. 1.
    Myerson SG. Heart valve disease: investigation by cardiovascular magnetic resonance. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2012;14:7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cawley PJ, Maki JH, Otto CM. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging for valvular heart disease: technique and validation. Circulation. 2009;119(3):468–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Han Y, Peters DC, Salton CJ, Bzymek D, Nezafat R, Goddu B, et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance characterization of mitral valve prolapse. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2008;1(3):294–303.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lopez-Mattei JC, Shah DJ. The role of cardiac magnetic resonance in valvular heart disease. Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J. 2013;9(3):142–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sommer G, Bremerich J, Lund G. Magnetic resonance imaging in valvular heart disease: clinical application and current role for patient management. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;35(6):1241–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Karamitsos TD, Myerson SG. The role of cardiovascular magnetic resonance in the evaluation of valve disease. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2011;54(3):276–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gatehouse PD, Keegan J, Crowe LA, Masood S, Mohiaddin RH, Kreitner KF, et al. Applications of phase-contrast flow and velocity imaging in cardiovascular MRI. Eur Radiol. 2005;15(10):2172–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kilner PJ, Firmin DN, Rees RS, Martinez J, Pennell DJ, Mohiaddin RH, et al. Valve and great vessel stenosis: assessment with MR jet velocity mapping. Radiology. 1991;178(1):229–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    O’Brien KR, Gabriel RS, Greiser A, Cowan BR, Young AA, Kerr AJ. Aortic valve stenotic area calculation from phase contrast cardiovascular magnetic resonance: the importance of short echo time. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2009;11:49.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Erwin JP 3rd, Guyton RA, et al. 2014 AHA/ACC guideline 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. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;148(1):e1–e132.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bellenger NG, Burgess MI, Ray SG, Lahiri A, Coats AJ, Cleland JG, et al. Comparison of left ventricular ejection fraction and volumes in heart failure by echocardiography, radionuclide ventriculography and cardiovascular magnetic resonance; are they interchangeable? Eur Heart J. 2000;21(16):1387–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Myerson SG, Bellenger NG, Pennell DJ. Assessment of left ventricular mass by cardiovascular magnetic resonance. Hypertension. 2002;39(3):750–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Koch JA, Poll LW, Godehardt E, Korbmacher B, Modder U. Right and left ventricular volume measurements in an animal heart model in vitro: first experiences with cardiac MRI at 1.0 T. Eur Radiol. 2000;10(3):455–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Walsh TF, Hundley WG. Assessment of ventricular function with cardiovascular magnetic resonance. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2007;15(4):487–504. vPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pennell DJ. Ventricular volume and mass by CMR. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2002;4(4):507–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Armstrong AC, Gidding S, Gjesdal O, Wu C, Bluemke DA, Lima JA. LV mass assessed by echocardiography and CMR, cardiovascular outcomes, and medical practice. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;5(8):837–48.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    John AS, Dill T, Brandt RR, Rau M, Ricken W, Bachmann G, et al. Magnetic resonance to assess the aortic valve area in aortic stenosis: how does it compare to current diagnostic standards? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;42(3):519–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kupfahl C, Honold M, Meinhardt G, Vogelsberg H, Wagner A, Mahrholdt H, et al. Evaluation of aortic stenosis by cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging: comparison with established routine clinical techniques. Heart. 2004;90(8):893–901.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kramer CM, Barkhausen J, Flamm SD, Kim RJ, Nagel E. Standardized cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) protocols, society for cardiovascular magnetic resonance: board of trustees task force on standardized protocols. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2008;10:35.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1532-429X-10-35.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Caruthers SD, Lin SJ, Brown P, Watkins MP, Williams TA, Lehr KA, et al. Practical value of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging for clinical quantification of aortic valve stenosis: comparison with echocardiography. Circulation. 2003;108(18):2236–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sondergaard L, Hildebrandt P, Lindvig K, Thomsen C, Stahlberg F, Kassis E, et al. Valve area and cardiac output in aortic stenosis: quantification by magnetic resonance velocity mapping. Am Heart J. 1993;126(5):1156–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pouleur AC, le Polain de Waroux JB, Pasquet A, Vancraeynest D, Vanoverschelde JL, Gerber BL. Planimetric and continuity equation assessment of aortic valve area: head to head comparison between cardiac magnetic resonance and echocardiography. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;26(6):1436–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mohiaddin RH, Kilner PJ. Valvular heart disease. In: Manning WJ, Pennell DJ, editors. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance. Philadelphia: Churchill Livingstone; 2002. p. 387–404.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    O’Brien KR, Gabriel RS, Greiser A, Cowan BR, Young AA, Kerr AJ. Aortic valve stenotic area calculation from phase contrast cardiovascular magnetic resonance: the importance of short echo time. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2009;11:49.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Barone-Rochette G, Pierard S, De Meester de Ravenstein C, Seldrum S, Melchior J, Maes F, et al. Prognostic significance of LGE by CMR in aortic stenosis patients undergoing valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64(2):144–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wagner S, Auffermann W, Buser P, Lim TH, Kircher B, Pflugfelder P, Higgins CB. Diagnostic accuracy and estimation of the severity of valvular regurgitation from the signal void on cine magnetic resonance images. Am Heart J. 1989;118:760–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dyverfeldt P, Bissell M, Barker AJ, Bolger AF, Carlhall CJ, Ebbers T, et al. 4D flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance consensus statement. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2015;17(1):72.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Keegan J, Gatehouse PD, John AS, Mohiaddin RH, Firmin DN. Breath-hold signal-loss sequence for the qualitative assessment of flow disturbances in cardiovascular MR. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2003;18(4):496–501.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nishimura T, Yamada N, Itoh A, Miyatake K. Cine MR imaging in mitral regurgitation: comparison with color Doppler flow imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1989;153:721–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Myerson SG, d’Arcy J, Mohiaddin R, Greenwood JP, Karamitsos TD, Francis JM, et al. Aortic regurgitation quantification using cardiovascular magnetic resonance: association with clinical outcome. Circulation. 2012;126(12):1452–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sondergaard L, Lindvig K, Hildebrandt P, Thomsen C, Stahlberg F, Joen T, et al. Quantification of aortic regurgitation by magnetic resonance velocity mapping. Am Heart J. 1993;125(4):1081–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Suzuki JI, Caputo GR, Kondo C, Higgins CB. Cine MR imaging of valvular heart disease: display and imaging parameters affect the size of the signal void caused by valvular regurgitation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1990;155:723–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sechtem U, Pflugfelder PW, Cassidy MM, White RD, Cheitlin MD, et al. Mitral or aortic regurgitation: quantification of regurgitant volumes with cine MR imaging. Radiology. 1988;167(2):425–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Baldy C, Douek P, Croisille P, Magnin IE, Revel D, Amiel M. Automated myocardial edge detection from breath-hold cine-MR images: evaluation of left ventricular volumes and mass. Magn Reson Imaging. 1994;12(4):589–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Chatzimavroudis GP, Oshinski JN, Franch RH, Pettigrew RI, Walker PG, Yoganathan AP. Quantification of the aortic regurgitant volume with magnetic resonance phase velocity mapping: a clinical investigation of the importance of imaging slice location. J Heart Valve Dis. 1998;7(1):94–101.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Djavidani B, Debl K, Lenhart M, Seitz J, Paetzel C, Schmid FX, et al. Planimetry of mitral valve stenosis by magnetic resonance imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45(12):2048–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Heidenreich PA, Steffens J, Fujita N, O’Sullivan M, Caputo GR, Foster E, et al. Evaluation of mitral stenosis with velocity-encoded cine-magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Cardiol. 1995;75(5):365–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lin SJ, Brown PA, Watkins MP, Williams TA, Lehr KA, Liu W, et al. Quantification of stenotic mitral valve area with magnetic resonance imaging and comparison with Doppler ultrasound. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44(1):133–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ohyama H, Hosomi N, Takahashi T, Mizushige K, Osaka K, Kohno M, et al. Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and transesophageal echocardiography in detection of thrombus in the left atrial appendage. Stroke. 2003;34(10):2436–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Chan KM, Wage R, Symmonds K, Rahman-Haley S, Mohiaddin RH, Firmin DN, et al. Towards comprehensive assessment of mitral regurgitation using cardiovascular magnetic resonance. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2008;10:61.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Stork A, Franzen O, Ruschewski H, Detter C, Mullerleile K, Bansmann PM, et al. Assessment of functional anatomy of the mitral valve in patients with mitral regurgitation with cine magnetic resonance imaging: comparison with transesophageal echocardiography and surgical results. Eur Radiol. 2007;17(12):3189–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gelfand EV, Hughes S, Hauser TH, Yeon SB, Goepfert L, Kissinger KV, et al. Severity of mitral and aortic regurgitation as assessed by cardiovascular magnetic resonance: optimizing correlation with Doppler echocardiography. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2006;8(3):503–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Benjamin J. Pomerantz, Marc D. Krock, Jason R. Wollmuth, Brian P. Cupps, Nicholas T. Kouchoukos, Victor G. Davila-Roman, Michael K. Pasque. Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Insufficiency: Valve Type as a Determinant of Systolic Strain Recovery. J Cardiac Surg. 2005;20(6):524–9.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Uretsky S, Gillam L, Lang R, Chaudhry FA, Argulian E, Supariwala A, et al. Discordance between echocardiography and MRI in the assessment of mitral regurgitation severity: a prospective multicenter trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65(11):1078–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Morello A, Gelfand EV. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging for valvular heart disease. Curr Heart Fail Rep. 2009;6(3):160–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Rebergen SA, Chin JG, Ottenkamp J, van der Wall EE, de Roos A. Pulmonary regurgitation in the late postoperative follow-up of tetralogy of Fallot. Volumetric quantitation by nuclear magnetic resonance velocity mapping. Circulation. 1993;88(5 Pt 1):2257–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Mercer-Rosa L, Yang W, Kutty S, Rychik J, Fogel M, Goldmuntz E. Quantifying pulmonary regurgitation and right ventricular function in surgically repaired tetralogy of Fallot: a comparative analysis of echocardiography and magnetic resonance imaging. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;5(5):637–43.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Li W, Davlouros PA, Kilner PJ, Pennell DJ, Gibson D, Henein MY, et al. Doppler-echocardiographic assessment of pulmonary regurgitation in adults with repaired tetralogy of Fallot: comparison with cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging. Am Heart J. 2004;147(1):165–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Geva T. Indications and timing of pulmonary valve replacement after tetralogy of fallot repair. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Pediatr Card Surg Annu. 2006:11–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Secchi F, Resta EC, Cannao PM, Tresoldi S, Butera G, Carminati M, et al. Four-year cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) follow-up of patients treated with percutaneous pulmonary valve stent implantation. Eur Radiol. 2015;25(12):3606–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Maragiannis D, Jackson MS, Flores-Arredondo JH, Autry K, Schutt RC, Alvarez PA, et al. Functional assessment of bioprosthetic aortic valves by CMR. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016 Jul;9(7):785–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Edwards MB, Taylor KM, Shellock FG. Prosthetic heart valves: evaluation of magnetic field interactions, heating, and artifacts at 1.5 T. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2000;12(2):363–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Edwards MB, Draper ER, Hand JW, Taylor KM, Young IR. Mechanical testing of human cardiac tissue: some implications for MRI safety. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2005;7(5):835–40.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hamilton-Craig C, Strugnell W, Gaikwad N, Ischenko M, Speranza V, Chan J, et al. Quantitation of mitral regurgitation after percutaneous MitraClip repair: comparison of Doppler echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2015;4(4):341–51.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Hartlage GR, Babaliaros VC, Thourani VH, Hayek S, Chrysohoou C, Ghasemzadeh N, et al. The role of cardiovascular magnetic resonance in stratifying paravalvular leak severity after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: an observational outcome study. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2014;16:93.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Fogel MA, Pawlowski TW, Whitehead KK, Harris MA, Keller MS, Glatz AC, et al. Cardiac magnetic resonance and the need for routine cardiac catheterization in single ventricle patients prior to Fontan: a comparison of 3 groups: pre-Fontan CMR versus cath evaluation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(12):1094–102.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Geva T. Repaired tetralogy of Fallot: the roles of cardiovascular magnetic resonance in evaluating pathophysiology and for pulmonary valve replacement decision support. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2011;13:9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Pomerantz BJ, Krock MD, Wollmuth JR, Cupps BP, Kouchoukos NT, et al. Aortic valve replacement for aortic insufficiency: valve type as a determinant of systolic strain recovery. J Card Surg. 2005;20(6):524–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Perez de Arenaza D, Lees B, Flather M, Nugara F, Husebye T, Jasinski M, et al. ASSERT (Aortic Stentless versus Stented valve assessed by Echocardiography Randomized Trial) investigators. Randomized comparison of stentless versus stented valves for aortic stenosis: effects on left ventricular mass. Circulation. 2005;112(17):2696–702.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Westenberg JJ, van der Geest RJ, Lamb HJ, Versteegh MI, Braun J, Doornbos J, et al. MRI to evaluate left atrial and ventricular reverse remodeling after restrictive mitral annuloplasty in dilated cardiomyopathy. Circulation. 2005;112(9 Suppl):I 437–442.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Kvitting JP, Ebbers T, Wigstrom L, Engvall J, Olin CL, Bolger AF. Flow patterns in the aortic root and the aorta studied with time-resolved, 3-dimensional, phase-contrast magnetic resonance imaging: implications for aortic valve-sparing surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2004;127(6):1602–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Myerson SG, Francis JM, Neubauer S. Direct and indirect quantification of mitral regurgitation with cardiovascular magnetic resonance, and the effect of heart rate variability. MAGMA. 2010;23(4):243–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Non-invasive Cardiovascular Imaging, Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine and Department of RadiologyBrigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  2. 2.Non-invasive Cardiovascular Imaging, Cardiovascular Division, Department of MedicineBrigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations