Korean Journal of Radiology

  • 제22권8호
  • /
  • Pages.1266-1278
  • /
  • 2021
  • /
  • 1229-6929(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2005-8330(eISSN)
대한영상의학회 (The Korean Society of Radiology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A New Method for Aortic Valve Planimetry with High-Resolution 3-Dimensional MRI and Its Comparison with Conventional Cine MRI and Echocardiography for Assessing the Severity of Aortic Valvular Stenosis

  • Hae Jin Kim (Department of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Yeon Hyeon Choe (Department of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Sung Mok Kim (Department of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Eun Kyung Kim (HVSI Imaging Center, Heart Vascular Stroke Institute, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Mirae Lee (Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Samsung Changwon Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Sung-Ji Park (HVSI Imaging Center, Heart Vascular Stroke Institute, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Joonghyun Ahn (Statistics and Data Center, Samsung Medical Center) ;
  • Keumhee C. Carriere (Department of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences, University of Alberta)
  • 투고 : 2020.10.07
  • 심사 : 2020.12.31
  • 발행 : 2021.08.01
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objective: We aimed to compare the aortic valve area (AVA) calculated using fast high-resolution three-dimensional (3D) magnetic resonance (MR) image acquisition with that of the conventional two-dimensional (2D) cine MR technique. Materials and Methods: We included 139 consecutive patients (mean age ± standard deviation [SD], 68.5 ± 9.4 years) with aortic valvular stenosis (AS) and 21 asymptomatic controls (52.3 ± 14.2 years). High-resolution T2-prepared 3D steady-state free precession (SSFP) images (2.0 mm slice thickness, 10 contiguous slices) for 3D planimetry (3DP) were acquired with a single breath hold during mid-systole. 2D SSFP cine MR images (6.0 mm slice thickness) for 2D planimetry (2DP) were also obtained at three aortic valve levels. The calculations for the effective AVA based on the MR images were compared with the transthoracic echocardiographic (TTE) measurements using the continuity equation. Results: The mean AVA ± SD derived by 3DP, 2DP, and TTE in the AS group were 0.81 ± 0.26 cm2, 0.82 ± 0.34 cm2, and 0.80 ± 0.26 cm2, respectively (p = 0.366). The intra-observer agreement was higher for 3DP than 2DP in one observer: intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94-0.97) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.82-0.91), respectively, for observer 1 and 0.97 (95% CI, 0.96-0.98) and 0.98 (95% CI, 0.97-0.99), respectively, for observer 2. Inter-observer agreement was similar between 3DP and 2DP, with the ICC of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.89-0.94) and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.88-0.93), respectively. 3DP-derived AVA showed a slightly higher agreement with AVA measured by TTE than the 2DP-derived AVA, with the ICC of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.82-0.91) vs. 0.85 (95% CI, 0.79-0.89). Conclusion: High-resolution 3D MR image acquisition, with single-breath-hold SSFP sequences, gave AVA measurement with low observer variability that correlated highly with those obtained by TTE.

키워드

과제정보

We appreciate Mr. Wooin Jung, RT, for his excellent technical supports.

참고문헌

  1. van der Linde D, Rossi A, Yap SC, McGhie JS, van den Bosch AE, Kirschbaum SW, et al. Ascending aortic diameters in congenital aortic stenosis: cardiac magnetic resonance versus transthoracic echocardiography. Echocardiography 2013;30:497-504 
  2. Nickl W, Futh R, Smettan J, Kohler T, Lankisch M, Kramer F, et al. Assessment of aortic valve area combining echocardiography and magnetic resonance imaging. Arq Bras Cardiol 2012;98:234-242 
  3. Pontone G, Andreini D, Bartorelli AL, Bertella E, Mushtaq S, Gripari P, et al. Comparison of accuracy of aortic root annulus assessment with cardiac magnetic resonance versus echocardiography and multidetector computed tomography in patients referred for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Am J Cardiol 2013;112:1790-1799 
  4. Altiok E, Frick M, Meyer CG, Al Ateah G, Napp A, Kirschfink A, et al. Comparison of two- and three-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography to cardiac magnetic resonance imaging for assessment of paravalvular regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Am J Cardiol 2014;113:1859-1866 
  5. Garcia J, Capoulade R, Le Ven F, Gaillard E, Kadem L, Pibarot P, et al. Discrepancies between cardiovascular magnetic resonance and Doppler echocardiography in the measurement of transvalvular gradient in aortic stenosis: the effect of flow vorticity. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2013;15:84 
  6. Hamm K, Trinkmann F, Heggemann F, Gruettner J, Schmid-Bindert G, Borggrefe M, et al. Evaluation of aortic valve stenosis using a hybrid approach of Doppler echocardiography and inert gas rebreathing. In Vivo 2012;26:1027-1033 
  7. Speiser U, Quick S, Haas D, Youssef A, Waessnig NK, Ibrahim K, et al. 3-T magnetic resonance for determination of aortic valve area: a comparison to echocardiography. Scand Cardiovasc J 2014;48:176-183 
  8. Singh A, McCann GP. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging for the assessment of aortic stenosis. Heart 2019;105:489-497 
  9. Choe YH, Kim SM, Park SJ. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging assessment of aortic valve stenosis: an update. Precis Future Med 2020;4:119-132 
  10. Kim MY, Park EA, Lee W, Lee SP. Cardiac magnetic resonance feature tracking in aortic stenosis: exploration of strain parameters and prognostic value in asymptomatic patients with preserved ejection fraction. Korean J Radiol 2020;21:268-279 
  11. Bak SH, Kim SM, Park SJ, Kim MY, Kim HJ, Lee SC, et al. Semiautomated analysis of aortic stenosis parameters on velocity-encoded phase-contrast MR images in patients with severe aortic stenosis: a comparison with echocardiography. Cardiovasc Imaging Asia 2017;1:78-85 
  12. Lee JW, Hur JH, Yang DH, Lee BY, Im DJ, Hong SJ, et al. Guidelines for cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging from the Korean Society of Cardiovascular Imaging-Part 2: interpretation of cine, flow, and angiography data. Cardiovasc Imaging Asia 2019;3:113-124 
  13. Jo Y, Kim J, Park CH, Lee JW, Hur JH, Yang DH, et al. Guidelines for cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging from Korean Society of Cardiovascular Imaging (KOSCI) - Part 1: standardized protocol. Investig Magn Reson Imaging 2019;23:296-315 
  14. Tanaka K, Makaryus AN, Wolff SD. Correlation of aortic valve area obtained by the velocity-encoded phase contrast continuity method to direct planimetry using cardiovascular magnetic resonance. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2007;9:799-805 
  15. Pouleur AC, le Polain de Waroux JB, Pasquet A, Vancraeynest D, Vanoverschelde JL, Gerber BL. Planimetric and continuity equation assessment of aortic valve area: head to head comparison between cardiac magnetic resonance and echocardiography. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007;26:1436-1443 
  16. Dimitriou P, Kahari A, Emilsson K, Thunberg P. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging and transthoracic echocardiography in the assessment of stenotic aortic valve area: a comparative study. Acta Radiol 2012;53:995-1003 
  17. Song I, Park JA, Choi BH, Ko SM, Shin JK, Chee HK, et al. Morphological and functional evaluation of quadricuspid aortic valves using cardiac computed tomography. Korean J Radiol 2016;17:463-471 
  18. John AS, Dill T, Brandt RR, Rau M, Ricken W, Bachmann G, et al. Magnetic resonance to assess the aortic valve area in aortic stenosis: how does it compare to current diagnostic standards? J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;42:519-526 
  19. Ahn JH, Kim SM, Park SJ, Jeong DS, Woo MA, Jung SH, et al. Coronary microvascular dysfunction as a mechanism of angina in severe AS: prospective adenosine-stress CMR study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016;67:1412-1422 
  20. Tandon A, Grayburn PA. Imaging of low-gradient severe aortic stenosis. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2013;6:184-195 
  21. Fairbairn TA, Steadman CD, Mather AN, Motwani M, Blackman DJ, Plein S, et al. Assessment of valve haemodynamics, reverse ventricular remodelling and myocardial fibrosis following transcatheter aortic valve implantation compared to surgical aortic valve replacement: a cardiovascular magnetic resonance study. Heart 2013;99:1185-1191 
  22. Buchner S, Debl K, Schmid FX, Luchner A, Djavidani B. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance assessment of the aortic valve stenosis: an in vivo and ex vivo study. BMC Med Imaging 2015;15:34 
  23. Myerson SG. Heart valve disease: investigation by cardiovascular magnetic resonance. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2012;14:7