FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2897963016> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2897963016 endingPage "163" @default.
• W2897963016 startingPage "163" @default.
• W2897963016 abstract "In a recent issue of JASE, Uretsky et al.1Uretsky S. Argulian E. Supariwala A. Marcoff L. Koulogiannis K. Aldaia L. et al.A comparative assessment of echocardiographic parameters for determining primary mitral regurgitation severity using magnetic resonance imaging as a reference standard.J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2018; 31: 992-999Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (19) Google Scholar sought to assess the recommended echocardiographic parameters used in the integrated approach against mitral regurgitant volume by cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) as a reference modality. They developed and validated a weighting for each echocardiographic measure of primary mitral regurgitation (MR) severity. Previously, the same group2Uretsky S. Gillam L. Lang R. Chaudhry F.A. Argulian E. Supariwala A. et al.Discordance between echocardiography and MRI in the assessment of mitral regurgitation severity: a prospective multicenter trial.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015; 65: 1078-1088Crossref PubMed Scopus (226) Google Scholar reported that left ventricular reverse remodeling after mitral valve surgery was correlated with MR severity as assessed by CMR, but not by echocardiography. This finding suggested that CMR is a more accurate method than echocardiography to assess MR severity. However, this is based on only 26 patients with pre- and postoperative CMR scans. There is evidence supporting the conclusion that CMR is more reproducible than echocardiography regarding calculation of regurgitant volume.2Uretsky S. Gillam L. Lang R. Chaudhry F.A. Argulian E. Supariwala A. et al.Discordance between echocardiography and MRI in the assessment of mitral regurgitation severity: a prospective multicenter trial.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015; 65: 1078-1088Crossref PubMed Scopus (226) Google Scholar Nevertheless, it remains questionable whether patient management should depend on a single parameter, as there is no established “gold standard” to define severe MR by cardiac imaging.3Hung J. Zeng X. Little S.H. Quantifying mitral regurgitation: how much should we lean on PISA?.J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2018; 31: 1000-1001Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (4) Google Scholar Several technical pitfalls limit the use of CMR as an ideal reference standard. Both arrhythmia and poor breath holding might compromise left ventricular volume quantification. In addition, although there might be a very good interobserver agreement for CMR in a study core laboratory, the difference of stroke volume measurement by CMR might be > 20 mL between readers depending on the method of left ventricular volume quantification in real-world settings (inclusion or exclusion of papillary muscles, selection of basal slice, correction for prolapsing volume in Barlow's disease).4Miller C.A. Jordan P. Borg A. Argyle R. Clark D. Pearce K. et al.Quantification of left ventricular indices from SSFP cine imaging: impact of real-world variability in analysis methodology and utility of geometric modeling.J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013; 37: 1213-1222Crossref PubMed Scopus (39) Google Scholar, 5Vincenti G. Masci P.G. Rutz T. De Blois J. Prša M. Jeanrenaud X. et al.Impact of bileaflet mitral valve prolapse on quantification of mitral regurgitation with cardiac magnetic resonance: a single-center study.J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2017; 19: 56Crossref PubMed Scopus (15) Google Scholar This may have a significant effect on the calculation of regurgitant volume and of grading MR severity for individual patients. At present, there are not yet outcome data from randomized controlled trials comparing patient management on the basis of either CMR or echocardiography. We would like to address several other issues regarding the evidence favoring the implementation of CMR in routine clinical practice to guide patient management. In the present multicenter study, 112 patients were collected over a period of 7 years, an average of only 16 patients per year, raising the question of potential bias of selection and the feasibility of CMR in this setting. It is well known that patients with the same effective regurgitant orifice areas and different regurgitant volumes may have different degrees of MR severity (holosystolic vs mid to late systolic jets). The echocardiographic quantitative approach has some well-known limitations, such as multiple and/or eccentric jets and/or nonholosystolic jets. Excluding these types of MR would lead to better agreement, as shown in a recent study by Penicka et al.6Penicka M. Vecera J. Mirica D.C. Kotrc M. Kockova R. Van Camp G. Prognostic implications of magnetic resonance-derived quantification in asymptomatic patients with organic mitral regurgitation: comparison with Doppler echocardiography-derived integrative approach.Circulation. 2018; 137: 1349-1360Crossref PubMed Scopus (83) Google Scholar In that study, a cutoff of regurgitant volume of >50 mL yielded a better area under the curve to predict outcomes than a cutoff of >60 mL, which was validated for echocardiographic grading and which was used in the present study. Therefore, in the absence of a well-established cutoff to define severe MR by CMR and convincing evidence that patient outcomes are improved by routine implementation of CMR, this technique should be recommended only when an indication for intervention is being pursued and when echocardiographic images or data are limited or confusing. A Comparative Assessment of Echocardiographic Parameters for Determining Primary Mitral Regurgitation Severity Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging as a Reference StandardJournal of the American Society of EchocardiographyVol. 31Issue 9PreviewThe American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) guidelines suggest the use of several echocardiographic methods to assess mitral regurgitation severity using an integrated approach, without guidance as to the weighting of each parameter. The purpose of this multicenter prospective study was to evaluate the recommended echocardiographic parameters against a reference modality and develop and validate a weighting for each echocardiographic measure of mitral regurgitation severity. Full-Text PDF Authors ReplyJournal of the American Society of EchocardiographyVol. 32Issue 1PreviewPerfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence.—Vince Lombardi Full-Text PDF" @default.
• W2897963016 created "2018-10-26" @default.
• W2897963016 creator A5035526813 @default.
• W2897963016 creator A5062972228 @default.
• W2897963016 creator A5075346732 @default.
• W2897963016 date "2019-01-01" @default.
• W2897963016 modified "2023-09-29" @default.
• W2897963016 title "Is Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging the New “Gold Standard” for Quantitation of Mitral Regurgitation? A Critical Appraisal" @default.
• W2897963016 cites W157061241 @default.
• W2897963016 cites W2121807622 @default.
• W2897963016 cites W2739811849 @default.
• W2897963016 cites W2777887827 @default.
• W2897963016 cites W2809047073 @default.
• W2897963016 cites W2889431373 @default.
• W2897963016 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.echo.2018.08.014" @default.
• W2897963016 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30337187" @default.
• W2897963016 hasPublicationYear "2019" @default.
• W2897963016 type Work @default.
• W2897963016 sameAs 2897963016 @default.
• W2897963016 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W2897963016 countsByYear W28979630162020 @default.
• W2897963016 countsByYear W28979630162021 @default.
• W2897963016 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2897963016 hasAuthorship W2897963016A5035526813 @default.
• W2897963016 hasAuthorship W2897963016A5062972228 @default.
• W2897963016 hasAuthorship W2897963016A5075346732 @default.
• W2897963016 hasBestOaLocation W28979630161 @default.
• W2897963016 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2897963016 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
• W2897963016 hasConcept C143409427 @default.
• W2897963016 hasConcept C164705383 @default.
• W2897963016 hasConcept C2776008845 @default.
• W2897963016 hasConcept C2987145844 @default.
• W2897963016 hasConcept C2993373945 @default.
• W2897963016 hasConcept C40993552 @default.
• W2897963016 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2897963016 hasConceptScore W2897963016C126322002 @default.
• W2897963016 hasConceptScore W2897963016C126838900 @default.
• W2897963016 hasConceptScore W2897963016C143409427 @default.
• W2897963016 hasConceptScore W2897963016C164705383 @default.
• W2897963016 hasConceptScore W2897963016C2776008845 @default.
• W2897963016 hasConceptScore W2897963016C2987145844 @default.
• W2897963016 hasConceptScore W2897963016C2993373945 @default.
• W2897963016 hasConceptScore W2897963016C40993552 @default.
• W2897963016 hasConceptScore W2897963016C71924100 @default.
• W2897963016 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2897963016 hasLocation W28979630161 @default.
• W2897963016 hasLocation W28979630162 @default.
• W2897963016 hasLocation W28979630163 @default.
• W2897963016 hasLocation W28979630164 @default.
• W2897963016 hasOpenAccess W2897963016 @default.
• W2897963016 hasPrimaryLocation W28979630161 @default.
• W2897963016 hasRelatedWork W1978885557 @default.
• W2897963016 hasRelatedWork W2023612881 @default.
• W2897963016 hasRelatedWork W2080655481 @default.
• W2897963016 hasRelatedWork W2104507093 @default.
• W2897963016 hasRelatedWork W2144188428 @default.
• W2897963016 hasRelatedWork W2292920786 @default.
• W2897963016 hasRelatedWork W2334738530 @default.
• W2897963016 hasRelatedWork W2896201906 @default.
• W2897963016 hasRelatedWork W4249199560 @default.
• W2897963016 hasRelatedWork W4285094569 @default.
• W2897963016 hasVolume "32" @default.
• W2897963016 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2897963016 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2897963016 magId "2897963016" @default.
• W2897963016 workType "article" @default.