This Article Abstract Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Lin, S. J. Articles by Caruthers, S. D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Lin, S. J. Articles by Caruthers, S. D.

Quantification of stenotic mitral valve area with magnetic resonance imaging and comparison with Doppler ultrasound

Shiow Jiuan Lin, MS^*, Peggy A. Brown, RDCS^*, Mary P. Watkins, RT^*, Todd A. Williams, RT^*, Katherine A. Lehr, BSN^*, Wei Liu, MS, Gregory M. Lanza, MD, PhD^*, Samuel A. Wickline, MD^* and Shelton D. Caruthers, PhD^*,*

^* Cardiovascular Division, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
Philips Medical Systems, Best, Netherlands

View larger version (48K): [in a new window]   Figure 1 (a) The velocity-encoded cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) image plane was positioned 1.5 cm from the mitral valve plane toward the apex. (b) A region of interest (ROI) in the velocity image includes the mitral flow jet allowing identification of the peak velocity. (c) Plot of the peak velocity versus time over the cardiac cycle measured by velocity-encoded CMR: note absence of the peak A-wave (Afib). LA = left atrium; LV = left ventricle.

View larger version (54K): [in a new window]   Figure 2 (a) Doppler estimation of the pressure half-time (PHT). (b) All velocity-encoded cardiovascular magnetic resonance data points from peak E to the linear portion of the flow velocity curve were included to determine the PHT by simple linear regression.

View larger version (27K): [in a new window]   Figure 3 Comparison of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) results to echocardiography: peak E is the maximum velocity at E-wave (a and b), and peak A is the maximum velocity at A-wave (c and d). (a) Scatter-plot of the peak E obtained by CMR versus echocardiography. (b) Bland-Altman plot of the mean results of both methods related to the mean difference. (c) Scatter-plot of the peak A obtained by CMR versus echocardiography. (d) Bland-Altman plot of the mean results of both methods related to the mean difference. SD = standard deviation.

View larger version (14K): [in a new window]   Figure 4 The mitral valve area (MVA) estimated using pressure half-time approach: comparison of velocity-encoded cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) results to echocardiography. (a) MVAs obtained by CMR correlated well with those by ultrasound. (b) Bland-Altman plot of the mean difference and 2 standard deviation (SD) limits of MVA estimated by both methods. Triangles = patients with AI; other abbreviations as in Figure 3.

View larger version (26K): [in a new window]   Figure 5 Interobserver reproducibility of mitral valve area using velocity-encoded cardiovascular magnetic resonance. The mitral valve area for ten patients analyzed by first (white bars) and second (black bars) observer is shown. Overall correlation between observers was r = 0.96 (p < 0.0001), as detailed in Table 1. Abbreviations as in Figure 3.