ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2020
Cardiac magnetic resonance assessment of mitral regurgitation severity appears better than echocardiographic imaging.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cardiac reverse remodeling in primary mitral regurgitation: mitral valve replacement vs. mitral valve repair.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2023Article
- Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging with standard imaging planes for mitral valve scallop pathology: interrater agreement and comparison with echocardiography.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2021Article
- Diagnostic value of mitral regurgitant jet volume in the assessment of mitral regurgitation severity by general imaging three-dimensional quantification.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The mitral valve surgery decision is made mainly according to echocardiographic (ECHO) criteria. As the asymptomatic patients are still candidates for surgery in some situations, this makes the accurate assessment of mitral regurgitation (MR) severity and cardiac dimensions even more important. We aimed to compare ECHO and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) in the assessment of MR severity and cardiac dimensions. In this prospective study, we included all patients with more than mild MR by ECHO and referred to our university hospital from 1st of April 2017 and 1st of April 2019. Exclusion criteria were critically ill patients, presence of other valve lesions, planned revascularization, pregnancy and contraindication for CMR. All patients had full history taking, examination, body surface area, and ECG. MR severity and left atrial and left ventricular dimensions were assessed in 50 patients with both 2D-ECHO and CMR in the same day. There were no significant differences in baseline clinical characteristics between moderate (24 patients) and severe MR (26 patients) groups. Poor degree of agreement was present between CMR and ECHO assessment for MR severity (same degree of MR only in 36% (18/50 patients) with kappa grade = 0.19). Furthermore, ECHO overestimated grades of MR compared to CMR (severe MR in 52% vs. 38.4%, p = 0.01 respectively). Based on the etiology of MR, primary (30 patients) vs. secondary MR (20 patients) showed the same dis-agreement between CMR and ECHO assessment of MR severity. Left atrial and ventricular dimensions showed good agreement between CMR and ECHO. Our results suggest that CMR could be more accurate than ECHO in assessing the severity of MR especially in severe cases that need surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32016882What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.