301 Accurate quantification of aortic regurgitation: comparison of MRI with doppler echocardiography
- PDF / 120,099 Bytes
- 2 Pages / 610 x 792 pts Page_size
- 77 Downloads / 183 Views
BioMed Central
Open Access
Meeting abstract
301 Accurate quantification of aortic regurgitation: comparison of MRI with doppler echocardiography Meera Sekar*, James Carr, Jennifer Berliner and Issam Mikati Address: Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, IL, USA * Corresponding author
from 11th Annual SCMR Scientific Sessions Los Angeles, CA, USA. 1–3 February 2008 Published: 22 October 2008 Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 2008, 10(Suppl 1):A104
doi:10.1186/1532-429X-10-S1-A104
Abstracts of the 11th Annual SCMR Scientific Sessions - 2008
Meeting abstracts – A single PDF containing all abstracts in this Supplement is available here. http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1532-429X-10-S1-info.pdfThis abstract is available from: http://jcmr-online.com/content/10/S1/A104 © 2008 Sekar et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
Introduction Echocardiography is the most widely used imaging modality for assessment of aortic regurgitation. Phase contrast MRI may also be used to quantify aortic regurgitation, but no standard imaging location has been identified on MRI. The purpose of this study is to determine which imaging location (at, above, or below the aortic valve) on phase contrast MRI best correlates with echocardiography.
Materials and methods A retrospective chart review identified 71 patients (52 male, 19 female) who were determined to have aortic regurgitation on PC-MRI. Phase contrast images were analyzed using the ARGUS program (Siemens). Regions of Interest (ROI) were manually defined around flow jets for images at the aortic valve as well as 6 mm above and below the aortic valve. Forward and reverse volumes were measured from these ROIs. To verify the internal consistency of the ARGUS program measurements left ventricular cine true FISP images were used and ROIs were manually drawn around the endocardium in order to calculate the end diastolic volume (EDV) and end systolic volume (ESV). The difference in these two volumes was
compared to the forward volume at the valve. Of the 71 patients who underwent PC-MRI, quantitative data were obtained on echocardiogram for 23 patients using the Velocity Time Integral.
Results For the 71 patients who received PC-MRI, no significant difference was found between forward volume and the difference of EDV and ESV and forward volume at the aortic valve (p = 0.39). The means of regurgitant volume at, above and below the valve on MRI were found to be significantly different from each other (p = .022 for least significant difference). This difference also held when the regurgitant fraction on MRI was calculated as the ratio of reverse volume below the valve and forward volume above the valve or the ratio of reverse volume below the valve and forward volume at the valve. No significant difference was found on MRI when comparing mean regurgitant fraction below the valve with mean regurgitant fraction calculated with forward volume being above (p = 0.45) or at the aortic valve (p = 0.47). For 23 patients, regurgitant volume was compared on MRI and Echo
Data Loading...
