Comparison of severity of aortic regurgitation by cardiovascular magnetic resonance versus transthoracic echocardiography

Ruvin S. Gabriel, Rahul Renapurkar, Michael A. Bolen, David Verhaert, Michael Leiber, Scott D. Flamm, Brian P. Griffin, Milind Y. Desai

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Transthoracic echocardiography is the current standard for assessing aortic regurgitation (AR). AR severity can also be evaluated by flow measurement in the ascending aorta using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR); however, the optimal site for flow measurement and the regurgitant fraction (RF) severity grading criteria that best compares with the transthoracic echocardiographic assessment of AR are not clear. The present study aimed to determine the optimal site and RF grading criteria for AR severity using phase-contrast flow measurements and CMR. A prospective observational study was performed of 107 consecutive patients who were undergoing CMR of the thoracic aorta. Using CMR, the AR severity and aortic dimensions were measured at 3 levels in the aorta (the sinotubular junction, mid-ascending aorta, and distal ascending aorta). The results were compared to the transthoracic echocardiographic grade of AR severity using multiple qualitative and quantitative criteria (grade 0, none; I+, mild; II+, mild to moderate; III+, moderate to severe; and IV+, severe). The mean RF values were significantly greater at the sinotubular junction than at the distal ascending aorta (13 ± 13.3% vs 9.4 ± 12.6%, respectively; p

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1014-1020
Number of pages7
JournalThe American Journal of Cardiology
Volume108
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Aortic Valve Insufficiency
Echocardiography
Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy
Aorta
Thoracic Aorta
Observational Studies
Prospective Studies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Gabriel, R. S., Renapurkar, R., Bolen, M. A., Verhaert, D., Leiber, M., Flamm, S. D., ... Desai, M. Y. (2011). Comparison of severity of aortic regurgitation by cardiovascular magnetic resonance versus transthoracic echocardiography. The American Journal of Cardiology, 108(7), 1014-1020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2011.05.034

Comparison of severity of aortic regurgitation by cardiovascular magnetic resonance versus transthoracic echocardiography. / Gabriel, Ruvin S.; Renapurkar, Rahul; Bolen, Michael A.; Verhaert, David; Leiber, Michael; Flamm, Scott D.; Griffin, Brian P.; Desai, Milind Y.

In: The American Journal of Cardiology, Vol. 108, No. 7, 01.10.2011, p. 1014-1020.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Gabriel, RS, Renapurkar, R, Bolen, MA, Verhaert, D, Leiber, M, Flamm, SD, Griffin, BP & Desai, MY 2011, 'Comparison of severity of aortic regurgitation by cardiovascular magnetic resonance versus transthoracic echocardiography', The American Journal of Cardiology, vol. 108, no. 7, pp. 1014-1020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2011.05.034
Gabriel, Ruvin S. ; Renapurkar, Rahul ; Bolen, Michael A. ; Verhaert, David ; Leiber, Michael ; Flamm, Scott D. ; Griffin, Brian P. ; Desai, Milind Y. / Comparison of severity of aortic regurgitation by cardiovascular magnetic resonance versus transthoracic echocardiography. In: The American Journal of Cardiology. 2011 ; Vol. 108, No. 7. pp. 1014-1020.
@article{1aacc30147254ea2919fcd367b04c81e,
title = "Comparison of severity of aortic regurgitation by cardiovascular magnetic resonance versus transthoracic echocardiography",
abstract = "Transthoracic echocardiography is the current standard for assessing aortic regurgitation (AR). AR severity can also be evaluated by flow measurement in the ascending aorta using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR); however, the optimal site for flow measurement and the regurgitant fraction (RF) severity grading criteria that best compares with the transthoracic echocardiographic assessment of AR are not clear. The present study aimed to determine the optimal site and RF grading criteria for AR severity using phase-contrast flow measurements and CMR. A prospective observational study was performed of 107 consecutive patients who were undergoing CMR of the thoracic aorta. Using CMR, the AR severity and aortic dimensions were measured at 3 levels in the aorta (the sinotubular junction, mid-ascending aorta, and distal ascending aorta). The results were compared to the transthoracic echocardiographic grade of AR severity using multiple qualitative and quantitative criteria (grade 0, none; I+, mild; II+, mild to moderate; III+, moderate to severe; and IV+, severe). The mean RF values were significantly greater at the sinotubular junction than at the distal ascending aorta (13 ± 13.3{\%} vs 9.4 ± 12.6{\%}, respectively; p",
author = "Gabriel, {Ruvin S.} and Rahul Renapurkar and Bolen, {Michael A.} and David Verhaert and Michael Leiber and Flamm, {Scott D.} and Griffin, {Brian P.} and Desai, {Milind Y.}",
year = "2011",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.amjcard.2011.05.034",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "108",
pages = "1014--1020",
journal = "American Journal of Cardiology",
issn = "0002-9149",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of severity of aortic regurgitation by cardiovascular magnetic resonance versus transthoracic echocardiography

AU - Gabriel, Ruvin S.

AU - Renapurkar, Rahul

AU - Bolen, Michael A.

AU - Verhaert, David

AU - Leiber, Michael

AU - Flamm, Scott D.

AU - Griffin, Brian P.

AU - Desai, Milind Y.

PY - 2011/10/1

Y1 - 2011/10/1

N2 - Transthoracic echocardiography is the current standard for assessing aortic regurgitation (AR). AR severity can also be evaluated by flow measurement in the ascending aorta using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR); however, the optimal site for flow measurement and the regurgitant fraction (RF) severity grading criteria that best compares with the transthoracic echocardiographic assessment of AR are not clear. The present study aimed to determine the optimal site and RF grading criteria for AR severity using phase-contrast flow measurements and CMR. A prospective observational study was performed of 107 consecutive patients who were undergoing CMR of the thoracic aorta. Using CMR, the AR severity and aortic dimensions were measured at 3 levels in the aorta (the sinotubular junction, mid-ascending aorta, and distal ascending aorta). The results were compared to the transthoracic echocardiographic grade of AR severity using multiple qualitative and quantitative criteria (grade 0, none; I+, mild; II+, mild to moderate; III+, moderate to severe; and IV+, severe). The mean RF values were significantly greater at the sinotubular junction than at the distal ascending aorta (13 ± 13.3% vs 9.4 ± 12.6%, respectively; p

AB - Transthoracic echocardiography is the current standard for assessing aortic regurgitation (AR). AR severity can also be evaluated by flow measurement in the ascending aorta using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR); however, the optimal site for flow measurement and the regurgitant fraction (RF) severity grading criteria that best compares with the transthoracic echocardiographic assessment of AR are not clear. The present study aimed to determine the optimal site and RF grading criteria for AR severity using phase-contrast flow measurements and CMR. A prospective observational study was performed of 107 consecutive patients who were undergoing CMR of the thoracic aorta. Using CMR, the AR severity and aortic dimensions were measured at 3 levels in the aorta (the sinotubular junction, mid-ascending aorta, and distal ascending aorta). The results were compared to the transthoracic echocardiographic grade of AR severity using multiple qualitative and quantitative criteria (grade 0, none; I+, mild; II+, mild to moderate; III+, moderate to severe; and IV+, severe). The mean RF values were significantly greater at the sinotubular junction than at the distal ascending aorta (13 ± 13.3% vs 9.4 ± 12.6%, respectively; p

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80052731365&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=80052731365&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.amjcard.2011.05.034

DO - 10.1016/j.amjcard.2011.05.034

M3 - Article

VL - 108

SP - 1014

EP - 1020

JO - American Journal of Cardiology

JF - American Journal of Cardiology

SN - 0002-9149

IS - 7

ER -