BackgroundIn clinical practice, the right heart filling status is assessed using the respirophasic variation of the inferior vena cava (IVC) assessed by transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) showing moderate correlations with the catheter‐based reference standard.PurposeTo develop and validate a similar approach using MRI.Study TypeProspective.Population37 male elite cyclists (mean age 26 ± 4 years).Field Strength/SequenceReal‐time balanced steady‐state free‐precession cine sequence at 1.5 Tesla.AssessmentRespirophasic variation included assessment of expiratory size of the upper hepatic part of the IVC and degree of inspiratory collapse expressed as collapsibility index (CI). The IVC was studied either in long‐axis direction (TTE) or using two transverse slices, separated by 30 mm (MRI) during operator‐guided deep breathing. For MRI, in addition to the TTE‐like diameter, IVC area and major and minor axis diameters were also assessed, together with the corresponding CIs.Statistical TestsRepeated measures ANOVA test with Bonferroni correction. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland–Altman analysis for intrareader and inter‐reader agreement. A P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.ResultsNo significant differences in expiratory IVC diameter were found between TTE and MRI, i.e., 25 ± 4 mm vs. 25 ± 3 mm (P = 0.242), but MRI showed a higher CI, i.e., 76% ± 14% vs. 66% ± 14% (P < 0.05). As the IVC presented a noncircular shape, i.e., major and minor expiratory diameter of 28 ± 4 mm and 21 ± 4 mm, respectively, the CI varied according to the orientation, i.e., 63% ± 27% vs. 75% ± 16%, respectively. Alternatively, expiratory IVC area was 4.3 ± 1.1 cm2 and showed a significantly higher CI, i.e., 86% ± 14% than diameter‐based CI (P < 0.05). All participants showed a CI >50% with MRI versus 35/37 (94%) with TTE. ICC values ranged 0.546–0.841 for MRI and 0.545–0.704 for TTE.ConclusionAssessment of the respirophasic IVC variation is feasible with MRI. Adding this biomarker may be of particular use in evaluating heart failure patients.Level of Evidence1Technical Efficacy Stage2