Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Poster presentation
  • Open Access

Assessment of changes in cardiac volumes following MitraClip™ implantation using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging

  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 2,
  • 2,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1 and
  • 1
Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance201214 (Suppl 1) :P101

https://doi.org/10.1186/1532-429X-14-S1-P101

  • Published:

Keywords

  • Mitral Valve
  • Right Ventricular
  • Cardiac Magnetic Resonance
  • Leave Atrial
  • Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Summary

This study aimed at assessing left ventricular (LV), left atrial (LA) and right ventricular (RV) volumes in patients before and after MitraClip™ implantation by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR).

Background

The MitraClip™ is a novel device for percutaneous mitral valve repair. Recent studies demonstrated a reduction of LV volumes after MitraClip™ implantation using echocardiography. CMR is currently the reference method to assess cardiac volumes but has not been used to assess LV remodeling after MitraClip™ implantation so far.

Methods

Twelve patients with functional (n=7) or degenerative (n=5) mitral valve regurgitation grade 3 to 4 underwent CMR at baseline (BL) before and at 6 month follow-up (FU) after successful MitraClip™ implantation. CMR protocol consisted of short- and long-axis slices using a steady-state-free-precession cine sequence for the assessment of LV, LA and RV volumes.

Results

Minor device-related artifacts were observed, enabling reliable delineation of endocardial borders in all patients at FU. Figure 1) demonstrates typical device-related artifacts 6 month after implantation (A) in comparison with a corresponding pre-implantation image (B). Mean intra- and inter-observer biases were 0.9±2.0 and 1.6±2.9 % for LV end-diastolic (LVEDV), 0.3±4.7 and 1.8±6.4 % for LV end systolic (LVESV), 0.1±2.9 and 2.2±3.7 % for RVEDV, 1.7±7.8 and 3.5±8.8 % for RVESV as well as 0.3±7.6 and 13.7±14.0 % for LA (LAV) volume indices at FU. No significant differences in intra- or inter-observer biases were observed between BL and FU. LVEDV (127 (96-150) vs. 112 (86-150) ml/m2; p=0.03) as well as LVESV (82 (54-91) vs. 69 (48-99) ml/m2; p=0.03) indices significantly decreased from BL to FU. No significant difference was found for RVEDV (94 (75-103) vs. 99 (77-123) ml/m2; p=0.91), RVESV (48 (42-80) vs. 51 (40-81) ml/m2; p=0.48) and LAV (87 (55-124) vs. 92 (48-137) ml/m2; p=0.20) indices between BL and FU.

Figure 1

Conclusions

CMR enables reproducible measurements of cardiac volumes in patients with implanted MitraClip™ devices. Significantly decreased LV but unchanged LA and RV volumes were found at 6 month after successful MitraClip™ implantation.

Funding

No external funding.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Center for Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery, University Heart Center Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
(2)
Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

Copyright

© Radunski et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement