Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2004
Quantification of stenotic mitral valve area with magnetic resonance imaging and comparison with Doppler ultrasound.
Сравнительное исследованиеОценочное 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.
Lin Shiow Jiuan, Brown Peggy A, Watkins Mary P, Williams Todd A, Lehr Katherine A, Liu Wei, Lanza Gregory M, Wickline Samuel A, Caruthers Shelton D
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability of the pressure half-time (PHT) method for estimating mitral valve areas (MVAs) by velocity-encoded cardiovascular magnetic resonance (VE-CMR) and to compare the method with paired Doppler ultrasound.
BACKGROUND: The pressure half-time Doppler echocardiography method is a practical technique for clinical evaluation of mitral stenosis. As CMR continues evolving as a routine clinical tool, its use for estimating MVA requires thorough evaluation.
METHODS: Seventeen patients with mitral stenosis underwent echocardiography and CMR. Using VE-CMR, MVA was estimated by PHT method. Additionally, peak E and peak A velocities were defined. Interobserver repeatability of VE-CMR was evaluated.
RESULTS: By Doppler, MVAs ranged from 0.87 to 4.49 cm2; by CMR, 0.91 to 2.70 cm2, correlating well between modalities (r = 0.86). The correlation coefficient for peak E and peak A between modalities was 0.81 and 0.89, respectively. Velocity-encoded CMR data analysis provided robust, repeatable estimates of peak E, peak A, and MVA (r = 0.99, 0.99, and 0.96, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Velocity-encoded cardiovascular magnetic resonance can be used routinely as a robust tool to quantify MVA via mitral flow velocity analysis with PHT method.
BACKGROUND: The pressure half-time Doppler echocardiography method is a practical technique for clinical evaluation of mitral stenosis. As CMR continues evolving as a routine clinical tool, its use for estimating MVA requires thorough evaluation.
METHODS: Seventeen patients with mitral stenosis underwent echocardiography and CMR. Using VE-CMR, MVA was estimated by PHT method. Additionally, peak E and peak A velocities were defined. Interobserver repeatability of VE-CMR was evaluated.
RESULTS: By Doppler, MVAs ranged from 0.87 to 4.49 cm2; by CMR, 0.91 to 2.70 cm2, correlating well between modalities (r = 0.86). The correlation coefficient for peak E and peak A between modalities was 0.81 and 0.89, respectively. Velocity-encoded CMR data analysis provided robust, repeatable estimates of peak E, peak A, and MVA (r = 0.99, 0.99, and 0.96, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Velocity-encoded cardiovascular magnetic resonance can be used routinely as a robust tool to quantify MVA via mitral flow velocity analysis with PHT method.