Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2010
Assessment of mitral bioprostheses using cardiovascular magnetic resonance.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
von Knobelsdorff-Brenkenhoff Florian, Rudolph André, Wassmuth Ralf, Schulz-Menger Jeanette
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The orifice area of mitral bioprostheses provides important information regarding their hemodynamic performance. It is usually calculated by transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), however, accurate and reproducible determination may be challenging. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) has been proven as an accurate alternative for assessing aortic bioprostheses. However, whether CMR can be similarly applied for bioprostheses in the mitral position, particularly in the presence of frequently coincident arrhythmias, is unclear. The aim of the study is to test the feasibility of CMR to evaluate the orifice area of mitral bioprostheses.
METHODS: CMR planimetry was performed in 18 consecutive patients with mitral bioprostheses (n = 13 Hancock(R), n = 4 Labcore(R), n = 1 Perimount(R); mean time since implantation 4.5 +/- 3.9 years) in an imaging plane perpendicular to the transprosthetic flow using steady-state free-precession cine imaging under breath-hold conditions on a 1.5T MR system. CMR results were compared with pressure half-time derived orifice areas obtained by TTE.
RESULTS: Six subjects were in sinus rhythm, 11 in atrial fibrillation, and 1 exhibited frequent ventricular extrasystoles. CMR image quality was rated as good in 10, moderate in 6, and significantly impaired in 2 subjects. In one prosthetic type (Perimount(R)), strong stent artifacts occurred. Orifice areas by CMR (mean 2.1 +/- 0.3 cm2) and TTE (mean 2.1 +/- 0.3 cm2) correlated significantly (r = 0.94; p < 0.001). Bland-Altman analysis showed a 95% confidence interval from -0.16 to 0.28 cm2 (mean difference 0.06 +/- 0.11 cm2; range -0.1 to 0.3 cm2). Intra- and inter-observer variabilities of CMR planimetry were 4.5 +/- 2.9% and 7.9 +/- 5.2%.
CONCLUSIONS: The assessment of mitral bioprostheses using CMR is feasible even in those with arrhythmias, providing orifice areas with close agreement to echocardiography and low observer dependency. Larger samples with a greater variety of prosthetic types and more cases of prosthetic dysfunction are required to confirm these preliminary results.
METHODS: CMR planimetry was performed in 18 consecutive patients with mitral bioprostheses (n = 13 Hancock(R), n = 4 Labcore(R), n = 1 Perimount(R); mean time since implantation 4.5 +/- 3.9 years) in an imaging plane perpendicular to the transprosthetic flow using steady-state free-precession cine imaging under breath-hold conditions on a 1.5T MR system. CMR results were compared with pressure half-time derived orifice areas obtained by TTE.
RESULTS: Six subjects were in sinus rhythm, 11 in atrial fibrillation, and 1 exhibited frequent ventricular extrasystoles. CMR image quality was rated as good in 10, moderate in 6, and significantly impaired in 2 subjects. In one prosthetic type (Perimount(R)), strong stent artifacts occurred. Orifice areas by CMR (mean 2.1 +/- 0.3 cm2) and TTE (mean 2.1 +/- 0.3 cm2) correlated significantly (r = 0.94; p < 0.001). Bland-Altman analysis showed a 95% confidence interval from -0.16 to 0.28 cm2 (mean difference 0.06 +/- 0.11 cm2; range -0.1 to 0.3 cm2). Intra- and inter-observer variabilities of CMR planimetry were 4.5 +/- 2.9% and 7.9 +/- 5.2%.
CONCLUSIONS: The assessment of mitral bioprostheses using CMR is feasible even in those with arrhythmias, providing orifice areas with close agreement to echocardiography and low observer dependency. Larger samples with a greater variety of prosthetic types and more cases of prosthetic dysfunction are required to confirm these preliminary results.