| | |
Pearson (r)
|
Mean difference (95%CI)
|
P value
|
Absolute mean difference (95%CI)
|
Kappa#
|
ICC
|
|---|
|
2D-PISA vs. CMR
|
RVol
|
0.837
|
15.8 (9.9 to 21.6)
|
< 0.001
|
22.1 (18 to 26.1)
| |
0.905
|
|
RF
|
0.834
|
5.9 (3.2 to 8.7)
|
< 0.001
|
9.9 (8.3 to 11.6)
|
0.571*
|
0.909
|
|
2D-PISA vs. 4DFind
|
RVol
|
0.633
|
17.2 (8.4 to 25.9)
|
< 0.001
|
28.8 (22.8 to 34.8)
| |
0.772
|
|
RF
|
0.747
|
4.9 (1.6 to 8.2)
|
0.005
|
10.9 (8.9 to 12.9)
|
0.510*
|
0.853
|
|
2D-PISA vs. 4DFdir
|
RVol
|
0.586
|
27.9 (19.1 to 36.8)
|
< 0.001
|
33 (25.9 to 40.1)
| |
0.703
|
|
RF
|
0.511
|
10.1 (5.4 to 14.7)
|
< 0.001
|
15.4 (12.3 to 18.5)
|
0.276*
|
0.676
|
|
CMR vs. 4DFind
|
RVol
|
0.739
|
1.1 (− 5.7 to 7.8)
|
0.757
|
16.6 (11.4 to 21.8)
| |
0.850
|
|
RF
|
0.840
|
− 1.2 (− 4.0 to 1.6)
|
0.397
|
7.9 (6.0 to 9.9)
|
0.542
|
0.913
|
|
CMR vs. 4DFdir
|
RVol
|
0.763
|
11 (4.5 to 17.4)
|
0.001
|
18.5 (13.8 to 23.2)
| |
0.842
|
|
RF
|
0.641
|
3.3 (− 0.9 to 7.4)
|
0.119
|
10.7 (7.9 to 13.5)
|
0.383
|
0.780
|
|
4DFind vs. 4DFdir
|
RVol
|
0.764
|
9.2 (2.4 to 16)
|
0.009
|
16.3 (10.8 to 21.8)
| |
0.834
|
|
RF
|
0.472
|
4.4 (− 0.4 to 9.3)
|
0.069
|
11.8 (8.2 to 15.3)
|
0.277
|
0.641
|
- 2D-PISA 2-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography derived proximal isovelocity surface area, CMR standard cardiac magnetic resonance, 4DFind 4-dimensional flow CMR indirect method, 4DFdir 4-dimensional flow CMR direct method, ICC intraclass correlation coefficient, 95%CI 95% confidence interval. # Mitral regurgitation severity grading agreement between methods (*compared to integrative echocardiographic multi-parametric approach)
