Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging with standard imaging planes for mitral valve scallop pathology: interrater agreement and comparison with echocardiography

被引:0
作者
Stinne Byrholdt Søgaard
Pia Gustavsen
Morten Dalsgaard
Niels G. Vejlstrup
Per Lav Madsen
机构
[1] Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet,Department of Diagnostic Radiology
[2] Copenhagen University Hospital Herlev-Gentofte,Department of Cardiology
[3] Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet,Department of Cardiology
[4] Copenhagen University,Department of Clinical Medicine
来源
The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging | 2021年 / 37卷
关键词
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging; Mitral valve regurgitation; Echocardiography; Scallop pathology; Interrater agreement;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) is applied in mitral valve regurgitation (MR) to quantify regurgitation volume/fraction and cardiac volumes, but individual scallop pathology is evaluated by echocardiography. To evaluate CMR for determination of individual scallop pathology, interrater variability on evaluation of scallop pathology from echocardiography and a standard clinical CMR protocol including a transversal stack was compared. 318 mitral scallops from 53 patients with primary MR were evaluated by two cardiologists evaluating echocardiography scans and two other cardiologists evaluating CMR scans (blinded). Inter-rater variability was determined with percentage agreement and Cohen’s kappa. In evaluable scallops, interrater agreement on the diagnosis of a prolapsing and/or flail scallop was 77–87% and kappa values of 0.27–0.67, irrespective of physician or modality. Important differences between modalities were primarily related to CMR-evaluators judging the A3 and the P3 to be normal when echocardiography demonstrated prolapsing or even flail scallops; poor imaging of calcification; and flailed scallops occasionally being undetected with CMR since the flow-voids may mask the scallop. Inter-rater agreement for scallop pathology in primary MR is comparable for echocardiography and standard magnetic resonance imaging scans, but CMR has important pitfalls relating to evaluation of A3 and P3 scallops, and suffers from poor visualization of calcification and lower spatial resolution than echo. CMR with standard planes cannot replace CMR with longitudinal planes or echo for the evaluation of specific scallop pathology in severe primary MR.
引用
收藏
页码:605 / 611
页数:6
相关论文
共 40 条
[1]  
Aplin M(2016)Cardiac remodelling and function with primary mitral valve insufficiency studied by magnetic resonance imaging Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 17 863-870
[2]  
Kyhl K(2015)Discordance between echocardiography and MRI in the assessment of mitral regurgitation severity: a prospective multicenter trial J Am Coll Cardiol 65 1078-1088
[3]  
Bjerre J(2018)Use of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in assessing mitral regurgitation current evidence J Am Coll Cardiol 38 2739-2786
[4]  
Uretsky S(2017)2017 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease Eur Heart J 7 e40491-14
[5]  
Gillam L(2012)Clinical application of cine-MRI in the visual assessment of mitral regurgitation compared to echocardiography and cardiac catheterization PLoS ONE 17 1-3198
[6]  
Lang R(2017)Cardiovascular magnetic resonance in the evaluation of heart valve disease BMC Med. Imaging 17 3189-332
[7]  
Uretsky S(2007)Assessment of functional anatomy of the mitral valve in patients with mitral regurgitation with cine magnetic resonance imaging: comparison with transesophageal echocardiography and surgical results Eur Radiol 10 16-1361
[8]  
Argulian E(2008)Mapping of mitral regurgitant defects by cardiovascular magnetic resonance in moderate or severe mitral regurgitation secondary to mitral valve prolapse J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 10 61-282
[9]  
Narula J(2008)Towards comprehensive assessment of mitral regurgitation using cardiovascular magnetic resonance J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 11 307-undefined
[10]  
Wolff SD(2020)Cardiac magnetic resonance assessment of mitral regurgitation severity appears better than echocardiographic imaging Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 20 1353-undefined