A comparison of the clinical efficacy of echocardiography and magnetic resonance for chronic aortic regurgitation.

AIMS

Timing surgery in chronic aortic regurgitation (AR) relies mostly on echocardiography. However, cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) may be more accurate for quantifying regurgitation and left ventricular (LV) remodelling. We aimed to compare the technical and clinical efficacies of echocardiography and CMR to account for the severity of the disease, the degree of LV remodelling, and predict AR-related outcomes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We studied 263 consecutive patients with isolated AR undergoing echocardiography and CMR. After a median follow-up of 33 months, 76 out of 197 initially asymptomatic patients reached the primary endpoint of AR-related events: 6 patients (3%) were admitted for heart failure, and 70 (36%) underwent surgery. Adjusted survival models based on CMR improved the predictions of the primary endpoint based on echocardiography: R2 = 0.37 vs. 0.22, χ2 = 97 vs. 49 (P < 0.0001), and C-index = 0.80 vs. 0.70 (P < 0.001). This resulted in a net classification index of 0.23 (0.00-0.46, P = 0.046) and an integrated discrimination improvement of 0.12 (95% confidence interval 0.08-0.58, P = 0.02). CMR-derived regurgitant fraction (<28, 28-37, or >37%) and LV end-diastolic volume (<83, 183-236, or >236 mL) adequately stratified patients with normal EF. The agreement between techniques for grading AR severity and assessing LV dilatation was poor, and CMR showed better reproducibility.

CONCLUSIONS

CMR improves the clinical efficacy of ultrasound for predicting outcomes of patients with AR. This is due to its better reproducibility and accuracy for grading the severity of the disease and its impact on the LV. Regurgitant fraction, LV ejection fraction, and end-diastolic volume obtained by CMR most adequately predict AR-related events.