Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Aortic Valve Stenosis and Aortic Root to Multimodality Imaging for Selection of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Candidates

The purpose of the present study was to compare the aortic valve area, aortic valve annulus, and aortic root dimensions measured using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with catheterization, transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), and transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). An optimal prosthesis aortic root match is an essential goal when evaluating patients for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Comparisons between MRI and the other imaging techniques are rare and need validation. In 24 consecutive, high-risk, symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis, aortic valve area was prospectively determined using MRI and direct planimetry using three-dimensional TTE and calculated by catheterization using the Gorlin equation and by Doppler echocardiography using the continuity equation. Aortic valve annulus and the aortic root dimensions were prospectively measured using MRI, 2-dimensional TTE, and invasive aortography. In addition, aortic valve annulus was measured using TEE. No differences in aortic valve area were found among MRI, Doppler echocardiography, and 3-dimensional TTE compared with catheterization (p = NS). Invasive angiography underestimated aortic valve annulus compared with MRI (p < 0.001), TEE (p < 0.001), and 2-dimensional TTE (p < 0.001). Two-dimensional TTE tended to underestimate the aortic valve annulus diameters compared to TEE and MRI. In contrast to 2-dimensional TTE, 3 patients had aortic valve annulus beyond the transcatheter aortic valve implantation range using TEE and MRI. In conclusion, MRI planimetry, Doppler, and 3-dimensional TTE provided an accurate estimate of the aortic valve area compared to catheterization. MRI and TEE provided similar and essential assessment of the aortic valve annulus dimensions, especially at the limits of the transcatheter aortic valve implantation range. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. (Am J Cardiol 2011;108:92-98)