SynthesisJournal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance2020
Evaluation of aortic stenosis using cardiovascular magnetic resonance: a systematic review & meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of Concomitant Mitral Regurgitation in Moderate Aortic Stenosis: Assessment of Remodeling and Clinical Outcomes.JACC. Cardiovascular imaging · 2026Article
- Aortic valve area determination by planimetry: comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography - a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of echocardiography · 2026Article
- Aortic Valve Stenosis: Progress from Diagnosis to Treatment.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Cardiovascular magnetic resonance and valvular heart diseases: a suggested protocol for congenital lesions.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2025Review
- Rare Genetic Variants inCirculation · 2024Article
- Cardiovascular Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Guideline of the Brazilian Society of Cardiology and the Brazilian College of Radiology - 2024.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2024Article
- Moderate Aortic Stenosis-Advanced Imaging, Risk Assessment, and Treatment Strategies.Structural heart : the journal of the Heart Team · 2024Review
- Diagnostic Challenges in Aortic Stenosis.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2024Review
- Non-Invasive Assessment of Multivalvular Heart Disease: A Comprehensive Review.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Review
- Beyond Aortic Stenosis: Addressing the Challenges of Multivalvular Disease Assessment.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Valvular Disease in the Elderly.The International journal of angiology : official publication of the International College of Angiology, Inc · 2022Article
- ANMCO position paper: 2022 focused update of appropriate use criteria for multimodality imaging: aortic valve disease.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2022Article
- Advanced cardiovascular multimodal imaging and aortic stenosis.Heart failure reviews · 2022Review
- A novel approach to determine aortic valve area with phase-contrast cardiovascular magnetic resonance.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2022Article
- Reply: Prosthesis-patient mismatch: No consensus yet.JTCVS open · 2021Article
- One-Year Hemodynamic Performance of Three Cardiac Aortic Bioprostheses: A Randomized Comparative Clinical Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Valve Stenosis: The Role of Non-Invasive Imaging.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
- Multimodality Imaging for Discordant Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis: Assessing the Valve and the Myocardium.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2020Review
- Multimodality Imaging in Aortic Stenosis.Heart views : the official journal of the Gulf Heart AssociationReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs the average age of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) who receive procedural intervention continue to age, the need for non-invasive modalities that provide accurate diagnosis and operative planning is increasingly important. Advances in cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) over the past two decades mean it is able to provide haemodynamic data at the aortic valve, along with high fidelity anatomical imaging.
methodsElectronic databases were searched for studies comparing CMR to transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and transoesophageal echocardiography (TEE) in the diagnosis of AS. Studies were included only if direct comparison was made on matched patients, and if diagnosis was primarily through measurement of aortic valve area (AVA).
resultsTwenty-three relevant, prospective articles were included in the meta-analysis, totalling 1040 individual patients. There was no significant difference in AVA measured as by CMR compared to TEE. CMR measurements of AVA size were larger compared to TTE by an average of 10.7% (absolute difference: + 0.14cm
conclusionsOur analysis demonstrates the equivalence of AVA measurements using CMR compared to those obtained using TEE. CMR demonstrated a small but significantly larger AVA than TTE. However, this can be attributed to known errors in derivation of left ventricular outflow tract size as measured by TTE. By offering additional anatomical assessment, CMR is warranted as a primary tool in the assessment and workup of patients with severe AS who are candidates for surgical or transcatheter intervention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.