Skip to main content

29.10.2019 | Original Paper

Quantification of mitral valve regurgitation by 2D and 3D echocardiography compared with cardiac magnetic resonance a systematic review and meta-analysis

The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging
Victor Sköldborg, Per Lav Madsen, Morten Dalsgaard, Jawdat Abdulla
Wichtige Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10554-019-01713-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.


By means of systematic literature review and meta-analysis, we compared results of studies examining different echocardiographic methods assessing severity of mitral valve regurgitation volume (MVR) with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) as standard reference. A systematic search of electronic databases revealed twenty studies eligible for meta-analysis. Results of 2D- and 3D-trans-thoracic (TTE) and trans-esophageal echocardiographic (TEE) proximal isovelocity surface area (PISA) and volumetric methods were compared with CMR. Mean differences (ml) with 95% limits of agreement (LoA) derived from Bland–Altman tests and correlations coefficients [(R) 95% confidence interval (CI)] were pooled together. Overall 1187 patients [mean age = 59 ± 13 years and 678(57%) males] with primary or secondary mild to severe MVR were included. Comparing all echocardiographic methods with CMR showed an overestimation and moderate agreement with difference and 95% LoA of 8.05(− 3.40, 19.49) ml, R = 0.73(95% CI 0.71–0.76) p < 0.001. 3D-PISA followed by 3D-volumetric methods showed the better agreement with an underestimation of − 3.20(− 12.33, 5.92) ml, R = 0.84(95% CI 0.78–0.89) p < 0.001 and overestimation of 3.73(− 9.17, 16.61) ml, R = 0.90(95% CI 0.87, 0.94) p < 0.001, respectively. 2D-volumetric method showed the poorest agreement with difference and 95% LoA of 23.56(− 4.19, 51.31) ml, R = 0.64(95% CI 0.54–0.73) p < 0.001. In patients (n = 280) with severe MVR, 2D technique incorrectly estimated regurgitation volume severity in 106 (38%) compared to 4(14%) patients using 3D technique. Among echocardiographic methods 3D-PISA agreed best with CMR as reference, making 3D-PISA the most reliable method to quantify MVR. CMR can be considered in severe MVR where uncertainties arise and a decision-making prior valve surgery is required. Further powerful studies are needed to assess the accuracy of different echocardiographic methods.

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

e.Med Interdisziplinär

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf Zusätzlich können Sie eine Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl in gedruckter Form beziehen – ohne Aufpreis.

Weitere Produktempfehlungen anzeigen
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 83 kb)
Über diesen Artikel
  1. Sie können e.Med Innere Medizin 14 Tage kostenlos testen (keine Print-Zeitschrift enthalten). Der Test läuft automatisch und formlos aus. Es kann nur einmal getestet werden.


Neu im Fachgebiet Kardiologie

Mail Icon II Newsletter

Bestellen Sie unseren kostenlosen Newsletter Update Kardiologie und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.