Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2021.01.066
Title: Standard and emerging CMR methods for mitral regurgitation quantification
Authors: Fidock, Benjamin
Archer, Gareth
Barker, Natasha
Elhawaz, Alaa
Al-Mohammad, Abdallah
Rothman, Alexander
Hose, Rod
Hall, Ian R
Grech, Ever
Briffa, Norman
Lewis, Nigel
van der Geest, Rob J
Zhang, Jun-Mei
Zhong, Liang 
Swift, Andrew J
Wild, James M
De Garate, Estefania
Bucciarelli-Ducci, Chiara
Bax, Jeroen J
Plein, Sven
Myerson, Saul
Garg, Pankaj
Keywords: Science & Technology
Life Sciences & Biomedicine
Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems
Cardiovascular System & Cardiology
Mitral valve insufficiency
Reproducibility of results
Magnetic resonance imaging
CARDIOVASCULAR MAGNETIC-RESONANCE
4-DIMENSIONAL FLOW
BLOOD-FLOW
VALVE
Issue Date: 29-Mar-2021
Publisher: ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
Citation: Fidock, Benjamin, Archer, Gareth, Barker, Natasha, Elhawaz, Alaa, Al-Mohammad, Abdallah, Rothman, Alexander, Hose, Rod, Hall, Ian R, Grech, Ever, Briffa, Norman, Lewis, Nigel, van der Geest, Rob J, Zhang, Jun-Mei, Zhong, Liang, Swift, Andrew J, Wild, James M, De Garate, Estefania, Bucciarelli-Ducci, Chiara, Bax, Jeroen J, Plein, Sven, Myerson, Saul, Garg, Pankaj (2021-03-29). Standard and emerging CMR methods for mitral regurgitation quantification. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY 331 : 316-321. ScholarBank@NUS Repository. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2021.01.066
Abstract: Background: There are several methods to quantify mitral regurgitation (MR) by cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). The interoperability of these methods and their reproducibility remains undetermined. Objective: To determine the agreement and reproducibility of different MR quantification methods by CMR across all aetiologies. Methods: Thirty-five patients with MR were recruited (primary MR = 12, secondary MR = 10 and MVR = 13). Patients underwent CMR, including cines and four-dimensional flow (4D flow). Four methods were evaluated: MRStandard (left ventricular stroke volume - aortic forward flow by phase contrast), MRLVRV (left ventricular stroke volume - right ventricular stroke volume), MRJet (direct jet quantification by 4D flow) and MRMVAV (mitral forward flow by 4D flow - aortic forward flow by 4D flow). For all cases and MR types, 520 MR volumes were recorded by these 4 methods for intra−/inter-observer tests. Results: In primary MR, MRMVAV and MRLVRV were comparable to MRStandard (P > 0.05). MRJet resulted in significantly higher MR volumes when compared to MRStandard (P < 0.05) In secondary MR and MVR cases, all methods were comparable. In intra-observer tests, MRMVAV demonstrated least bias with best limits of agreement (bias = −0.1 ml, −8 ml to 7.8 ml, P = 0.9) and best concordance correlation coefficient (CCC = 0.96, P < 0.01). In inter-observer tests, for primary MR and MVR, least bias and highest CCC were observed for MRMVAV. For secondary MR, bias was lowest for MRJet (−0.1 ml, P[dbnd]NS). Conclusion: CMR methods of MR quantification demonstrate agreement in secondary MR and MVR. In primary MR, this was not observed. Across all types of MR, MRMVAV quantification demonstrated the highest reproducibility and consistency.
Source Title: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
URI: https://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/226644
ISSN: 01675273
18741754
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2021.01.066
Appears in Collections:Staff Publications
Elements

Show full item record
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormatAccess SettingsVersion 
Standard and emerging CMR methods for mitral regurgitation quantification.pdfPublished version2.11 MBAdobe PDF

OPEN

PublishedView/Download

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

5
checked on Oct 1, 2022

Page view(s)

31
checked on Sep 29, 2022

Download(s)

1
checked on Sep 29, 2022

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.