Skip to main content

Table 3 Comparison of regurgitant volume (RVol) and regurgitant fraction (RF) between methods

From: Quantification of regurgitation in mitral valve prolapse with four-dimensional flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance

   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
  1. 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)