EACVI survey on evaluation and quantification of aortic regurgitation by multi-modality imaging.

European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice Pub Date : 2025-06-27 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1093/ehjimp/qyaf058
Sanjeev Bhattacharyya, Simona Beatrice Botezatu, Giulia Elena Mandoli, Giulia Vinco, Tor Biering-Sørensen, Robert Manka, Emmanuel Androulakis, Jose Rodriguez-Palomares, Jadranka Separovic Hanzevacki, Jolien Geers, Maria Lembo, Anna Baritussio, Tomaž Podlesnikar, Marc R Dweck
{"title":"EACVI survey on evaluation and quantification of aortic regurgitation by multi-modality imaging.","authors":"Sanjeev Bhattacharyya, Simona Beatrice Botezatu, Giulia Elena Mandoli, Giulia Vinco, Tor Biering-Sørensen, Robert Manka, Emmanuel Androulakis, Jose Rodriguez-Palomares, Jadranka Separovic Hanzevacki, Jolien Geers, Maria Lembo, Anna Baritussio, Tomaž Podlesnikar, Marc R Dweck","doi":"10.1093/ehjimp/qyaf058","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>To investigate the real-world, current clinical practice of the assessment and management of aortic regurgitation (AR).</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>An electronic survey was distributed to cardiovascular imaging specialists by the European Society Association of Cardiovascular Imaging Scientific Initiatives Committee. Three hundred respondents from 66 countries completed the survey. In patients where initial qualitative evaluation suggested moderate AR, regurgitation severity was further characterized using vena contracta in 83%, pressure half-time in 70%, jet width/outflow tract diameter in 59%, regurgitant volume/effective orifice area 57% and three-dimensional vena contract in 20% of respondents. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) was used by 72% of respondents when transthoracic echocardiographic (TTE) image quality was poor and 74% of respondents when there was discordance between Doppler findings and ventricular assessments. CMR 4-dimensional flow was performed by 19% of respondents. Left ventricular (LV) diameters were measured at the mitral valve level by 52% and at the mid LV by 43% of respondents. LV volumes were measured using TTE by 70%, with CMR by 40% and with CT by 2% of respondents.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is heterogeneity in the echocardiographic methods used to quantify AR. The vena-contracta is the most commonly used for assessment of AR severity with relative underutilisation of quantitative methods. CMR is widely used to assess AR severity when echocardiographic assessments are uncertain. There is variation in the anatomical location to measure LV dilatation and variable use of LV volumes which may impact decision making for intervention.</p>","PeriodicalId":94317,"journal":{"name":"European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice","volume":"3 1","pages":"qyaf058"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12204183/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjimp/qyaf058","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: To investigate the real-world, current clinical practice of the assessment and management of aortic regurgitation (AR).

Methods and results: An electronic survey was distributed to cardiovascular imaging specialists by the European Society Association of Cardiovascular Imaging Scientific Initiatives Committee. Three hundred respondents from 66 countries completed the survey. In patients where initial qualitative evaluation suggested moderate AR, regurgitation severity was further characterized using vena contracta in 83%, pressure half-time in 70%, jet width/outflow tract diameter in 59%, regurgitant volume/effective orifice area 57% and three-dimensional vena contract in 20% of respondents. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) was used by 72% of respondents when transthoracic echocardiographic (TTE) image quality was poor and 74% of respondents when there was discordance between Doppler findings and ventricular assessments. CMR 4-dimensional flow was performed by 19% of respondents. Left ventricular (LV) diameters were measured at the mitral valve level by 52% and at the mid LV by 43% of respondents. LV volumes were measured using TTE by 70%, with CMR by 40% and with CT by 2% of respondents.

Conclusion: There is heterogeneity in the echocardiographic methods used to quantify AR. The vena-contracta is the most commonly used for assessment of AR severity with relative underutilisation of quantitative methods. CMR is widely used to assess AR severity when echocardiographic assessments are uncertain. There is variation in the anatomical location to measure LV dilatation and variable use of LV volumes which may impact decision making for intervention.

多模态成像评价和量化主动脉瓣反流的EACVI调查。
目的:探讨现实世界中主动脉瓣反流(AR)的评估和处理的临床实践。方法和结果:一份电子调查由欧洲协会心血管成像科学倡议委员会分发给心血管成像专家。来自66个国家的300名受访者完成了这项调查。在最初定性评价为中度AR的患者中,通过静脉收缩率为83%,压力半时间为70%,射流宽度/流出道直径为59%,反流体积/有效孔面积为57%,三维静脉收缩率为20%来进一步表征反流严重程度。当经胸超声心动图(TTE)图像质量较差时,72%的应答者使用心脏磁共振(CMR),当多普勒结果与心室评估不一致时,74%的应答者使用心脏磁共振(CMR)。19%的受访者执行了CMR四维流程。52%的应答者在二尖瓣水平测量左心室(LV)直径,43%的应答者在中心室测量左心室(LV)直径。70%的受访者使用TTE测量左室容积,40%使用CMR, 2%使用CT。结论:用于量化AR的超声心动图方法存在异质性。静脉收缩是评估AR严重程度最常用的方法,而定量方法的应用相对不足。当超声心动图评估不确定时,CMR被广泛用于评估AR严重程度。测量左室扩张的解剖位置不同,左室容积的使用也不同,这可能会影响干预决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信