Standard and emerging CMR methods for mitral regurgitation quantification

Benjamin Fidock, Gareth Archer, Natasha Barker, Alaa Elhawaz, Abdallah Al-Mohammad, Alexander Rothman, Rod Hose, Ian R. Hall, Ever Grech, Norman Briffa, Nigel Lewis, Rob J. van der Geest, Jun-Mei Zhang, Liang Zhong, Andrew J. Swift, James M. Wild, Estefania De Gárate, Chiara Bucciarelli-Ducci, Jeroen J. Bax, Sven PleinSaul Myerson, Pankaj Garg

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

20 Citations (Scopus)
4 Downloads (Pure)


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, P[dbnd]NS). 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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)316-321
Number of pages6
JournalInternational Journal of Cardiology
Early online date3 Feb 2021
Publication statusPublished - 15 May 2021


  • Magnetic resonance imaging
  • Mitral valve insufficiency
  • Reproducibility of results

Cite this