Comparative Assessment of Mitral Regurgitation Severity by Transthoracic Echocardiography and Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Using an Integrative and Quantitative Approach

• Published in: The American journal of cardiology Vol. 117; no. 2; pp. 264 - 270
• Main Authors: Lopez-Mattei, Juan C., Ibrahim, Homam, Shaikh, Kamran A., Little, Stephen H., Shah, Dipan J., Maragiannis, Dimitrios, Zoghbi, William A.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 15.01.2016; Elsevier Limited
• Subjects: Cardiology; Cardiovascular; Echocardiography - methods; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Heart attacks; Humans; Laboratories; Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Cine - methods; Male; Methods; Middle Aged; Mitral Valve Insufficiency - diagnosis; Reproducibility of Results; Retrospective Studies; Severity of Illness Index
• ISSN: 0002-9149; 1879-1913
• DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2015.10.045

Although transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) are validated in quantitation of mitral regurgitation (MR), discrepancies may occur. This study assesses the agreement between TTE and CMR in MR and evaluates characteristics and clinical outcome of patients with discrepancy. From our institutional database, 70 subjects with MR underwent both TTE and CMR within 30 days (median 3 days). MR was evaluated semiquantitatively (n = 70) using a 4-grade scale and quantitatively (n = 60) with calculation of regurgitant volume (RVol) and regurgitant fraction (RF). Of the 70 subjects, qualitative assessment by TTE yielded 30 subjects with mild MR, 17 moderate, and 23 moderately severe or severe MR. Exact concordance in MR grade was seen in 50% and increased to 91% when considering concordance within one grade of severity (κ = 0.44). A modest correlation was observed for RVol and RF between both methods (r = 0.59 and 0.54, respectively, p <0.0001). Ten patients had a significant discrepancy in quantitative MR (difference in RF >20%); the frequency of secondary MR was higher (100% vs 46%; p = 0.003) in patients with discrepancy. Although interobserver variability in RF was higher with TTE compared with CMR (−5.5 ± 15% vs 0.1 ± 7.3%), patients with discrepancy were equally distributed by severity and clinical outcome without an overestimation by either method. In conclusion, there is a modest agreement between TTE and CMR in assessing MR severity. In patients with discrepancy, there is a higher prevalence of functional MR, without a consistent overestimation of MR severity by either method.