Standard and emerging CMR methods for mitral regurgitation quantification

Background: There are several methods to quantify mitral regurgitation (MR) by cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). The interoperability of these methods and their reproducibility remains undetermined.

Objective: To determine the agreement and reproducibility of different MR quantification methods by CMR across all aetiologies.

Methods: Thirty-five patients with MR were recruited (primary MR = 12, secondary MR = 10 and MVR = 13). Patients underwent CMR, including cines and four-dimensional flow (4D flow). Four methods were evaluated: MR_Standard (left ventricular stroke volume - aortic forward flow by phase contrast), MR_LVRV (left ventricular stroke volume - right ventricular stroke volume), MR_Jet (direct jet quantification by 4D flow) and MR_MVAV (mitral forward flow by 4D flow - aortic forward flow by 4D flow). For all cases and MR types, 520 MR volumes were recorded by these 4 methods for intra-/inter-observer tests.

Results: In primary MR, MR_MVAV and MR_LVRV were comparable to MR_Standard (P > 0.05). MR_Jet resulted in significantly higher MR volumes when compared to MR_Standard (P < 0.05) In secondary MR and MVR cases, all methods were comparable. In intra-observer tests, MR_MVAV demonstrated least bias with best limits of agreement (bias = -0.1 ml, -8 ml to 7.8 ml, P = 0.9) and best concordance correlation coefficient (CCC = 0.96, P < 0.01). In inter-observer tests, for primary MR and MVR, least bias and highest CCC were observed for MR_MVAV. For secondary MR, bias was lowest for MR_Jet (-0.1 ml, PNS).

Conclusion: CMR methods of MR quantification demonstrate agreement in secondary MR and MVR. In primary MR, this was not observed. Across all types of MR, MR_MVAV quantification demonstrated the highest reproducibility and consistency.