Premium
Planimetric and continuity equation assessment of aortic valve area: Head to head comparison between cardiac magnetic resonance and echocardiography
Author(s) -
Pouleur AnneCatherine,
le Polain de Waroux JeanBenoît,
Pasquet Agnès,
Vancraeynest David,
Vanoverschelde JeanLouis J.,
Gerber Bernhard L.
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
journal of magnetic resonance imaging
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.563
H-Index - 160
eISSN - 1522-2586
pISSN - 1053-1807
DOI - 10.1002/jmri.21182
Subject(s) - medicine , cardiology , stenosis , aortic valve , magnetic resonance imaging , nuclear medicine , radiology
Purpose To compare the accuracy of planimetric and continuity equation measurements of aortic valve area (AVA) by cardiac MR (cMR) to each other and against transthoracic (TTE) and transesophageal (TEE) echocardiography. Materials and Methods A total of 31 patients (21 men, mean age = 67 ± 13 years) with aortic stenosis (AS) and 16 controls (12 men, mean age = 57 ± 14 years) underwent measurement of AVA by planimetric and continuity equation cMR. Measurements were compared to TEE planimetry and continuity equation TTE. Results AVA by continuity equation cMR correlated highly to continuity equation TTE (r = 0.98) and was not significantly different (1.8 ± 1.3 cm 2 vs. 1.8 ± 1.4 cm 2 , P = 0.62). Similarly, AVA by cMR planimetry was not statistically different from TEE planimetry (2.1 ± 1.7 cm 2 vs. 2.1 ± 1.6 cm 2 , P = 0.34) and correlated highly (r = 0.98). Yet planimetric measurements of AVA by cMR and TEE were significantly higher than AVA by continuity equation cMR ( P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively) and TTE ( P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). Conclusion Both planimetry and continuity equation–based measurements of AVA by cMR are equally accurate. However, similar to TEE, cMR AVA is larger by planimetry than by continuity equation. This is consistent with the contention that the anatomical maximum opening of a stenotic aortic valve is larger than the size of the functional vena contracta. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2007. © 2007 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.