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)