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