Skip to main content

Table 2 Comparison of haemodynamic measurements between CMR and TTE

From: Evaluation of aortic stenosis using cardiovascular magnetic resonance: a systematic review & meta-analysis

Author

Year

n

AS

Method

Conclusion

Defrance

2012

74

53

Novel semi-automated process as described by Bollache, et al. 2010

Good agreement with TTE for PV and MG (r = 0.92 with mean bias −0.29 ± 0.62 m/s and r = 0.86 with mean bias −12 ± 15 mmHg, respectively)

Caruthers

2002

24

24

Simpsons rule for VTI and modified Bernoulli equation for gradients

Good agreement with TTE for PG and MG (r = 0.83 and r = 0.87, respectively)

Levy

2016

91

91

Not described

Good agreement with TTE for PV (r = 0.73 with mean bias −0.35 ± 0.40 m/s)

Garcia

2013

68

60

Simplified Bernoulli equation

Good agreement with TTE for MG (r = 0.7 with mean bias −2.8 mmHg)

Eichenberger

1993

19

19

Simplified Bernoulli equation

Good agreement with TTE for MG (r = 0.96)

Sirin

2014

19a

19

Simplified Bernoulli equation

Good agreement with TTE for MG (r = 0.84 with mean bias −12.4 mmHg)

  1. aPaediatric patients
  2. PV Peak velocity, MG Mean gradient, PV Peak gradient, VTI Velocity time interval