Magnetic resonance imaging versus echocardiography to ascertain the regression of left ventricular hypertrophy after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement: Results of the REST study

Breitenbach, Ingo; Harringer, Wolfgang; Tsui, Steven; Amorim, Mário Jorge; Herregods, Marie‐Christine; Bogaert, Jan; Goiti, Juan J.; Gerosa, Gino

doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2011.11.017

Cited by 15 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results confirm studies which have shown that LVM by echocardiography linear measurements is higher on average compared to CMR measurements . The PRESERVE study included echocardiography assessment of LVM to compare with CMR at baseline and after 1‐year follow‐up, and found a mean overestimation of myocardial mass by echocardiography of 27.6 ± 36.0 g and 37.1 ± 27.6 g, respectively .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

“…[15–18] The PRESERVE study included echocardiography assessment of LVM to compare with CMR at baseline and after one-year follow-up, and found a mean overestimation of myocardial mass by echocardiography of 27.6±36.0 g and 37.1±27.6 g, respectively. [19] In patients undergoing mitral valve replacement, the assessment by M-mode echocardiography overestimated LVM values compared to CMR (mean differences ranged from 70 g to 108 g for post- and pre-operative assessments, respectively), but both provided reliable information of myocardial mass regression.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Left Ventricular Mass and Hypertrophy by Echocardiography and Cardiac Magnetic Resonance: The Multi‐Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND Left ventricular mass (LVM) and hypertrophy (LVH) are important parameters, but their use is surrounded by controversies. We compare LVM by echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), investigating reproducibility aspects and the effect of echocardiography image quality. We also compare indexing methods within and between imaging modalities for classification of LVH and cardiovascular risk. METHODS MESA enrolled 880 participants in Baltimore City; 146 had echocardiograms and CMR on the same day. LVM was then assessed using standard techniques. Echocardiography image quality was rated (good/limited) according to the parasternal view. LVH was defined after indexing LVM to body surface area, height1.7, height2.7, or by the predicted LVM from a reference group. Participants were classified for cardiovascular risk according to Framingham score. Pearson’s correlation, Bland-Altman plots, percent agreement, and kappa coefficient assessed agreement within and between modalities. RESULTS LVM by echocardiography (140 ± 40 g) and by CMR were correlated (r = 0.8, p < 0.001) regardless of the echocardiography image quality. The reproducibility profile had strong correlations and agreement for both modalities. Image quality groups had similar characteristics; those with good images compared to CMR slightly superiorly. The prevalence of LVH tended to be higher with higher cardiovascular risk. The agreement for LVH between imaging modalities ranged from 77% to 98% and the kappa coefficient from 0.10 to 0.76. CONCLUSIONS Echocardiography has a reliable performance for LVM assessment and classification of LVH, with limited influence of image quality. Echocardiography and CMR differ in the assessment of LVH, and additional differences rise from the indexing methods.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Left Ventricular Mass and Hypertrophy by Echocardiography and Cardiac Magnetic Resonance: The Multi‐Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Due to superior reliability, we used CMR instead of echocardiography to assess cardiac structure and function. 40…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cigarette Smoking and Incident Heart Failure

Kamimura¹,

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, a significant difference with the other prostheses was not observed ( P = 0.08). Although MRI may result more accurate than echocardiography in assessing left ventricular mass regression after AVR, 31 because of the higher cost its systematic use is still uncommon and often not available in retrospective studies. Therefore, a transthoracic echocardiogram is generally preferred and considered a reliable tool for evaluation of left ventricular mass regression.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aortic Valve Replacement in Elderly Patients With Small Aortic Annulus: Results With Three Different Bioprostheses

Chiariello

Bruno

Villa

et al. 2019

Innovations�(Phila)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients with small aortic annulus (diameter ≤21 mm) is considered a challenging scenario because of technical aspects and the high risk of patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM). The choice of the appropriate prosthesis is crucial, and at the moment, an ideal device has yet to be identified. We compare clinical and hemodynamic results after AVR with three bioprostheses with different design and characteristics. Methods We retrospectively evaluated 76 consecutive patients from two cardiac surgery centers who underwent AVR (Trifecta = 24; Edwards INTUITY Elite valve system = 26, and Perceval = 26) for severe aortic stenosis between 2013 and 2017. Patients selected were older than 75 years and with an annulus diameter ≤21 mm at preoperative echocardiogram. Reinterventions and combined procedures were excluded. Minimally invasive AVR was performed in 44 (57.8%) patients. Telephonic interview was obtained at 2.9 ± 0.5 years and echocardiographic follow-up at 2.2 ± 0.8 years. Results Clinical outcome was similar in the three groups. At follow-up, Trifecta patients presented significantly higher peak and mean transprosthetic pressure gradients ( P = 0.04 and 0.01). Effective orifice area and left ventricular mass regression were comparable, although an advantage was observed in Perceval patients without reaching the statistical significance. Incidence of moderate ( P = 0.2) and severe PPM ( P = 0.7) was comparable. Conclusions Despite higher postoperative pressure gradients observed with the Trifecta valve, all three prostheses (Trifecta, Edwards INTUITY Elite, and Perceval) have proven to be reliable when implanted in small aortic annuli, with good clinical outcome and favorable left ventricular mass regression.

show abstract

Magnetic resonance imaging versus echocardiography to ascertain the regression of left ventricular hypertrophy after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement: Results of the REST study

Cited by 15 publications

References 23 publications

Left Ventricular Mass and Hypertrophy by Echocardiography and Cardiac Magnetic Resonance: The Multi‐Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis

Left Ventricular Mass and Hypertrophy by Echocardiography and Cardiac Magnetic Resonance: The Multi‐Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis

Cigarette Smoking and Incident Heart Failure

Aortic Valve Replacement in Elderly Patients With Small Aortic Annulus: Results With Three Different Bioprostheses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About