Effects of Mitral Valve Prolapse on Quantification of Mitral Regurgitation and Ejection Fraction Using Cardiac MRI

Bamidele T Otemuyiwa; Elizabeth M Lee; Edith Sella; Chaitanya Madamanchi; Sowmya Balasubramanian; Tianwen Ma; Aparna Joshi; Jimmy C Lu; Adam L Dorfman; Prachi Agarwal

doi:10.1148/ryct.220069

Effects of Mitral Valve Prolapse on Quantification of Mitral Regurgitation and Ejection Fraction Using Cardiac MRI

Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging. 2023 Feb 16;5(1):e220069. doi: 10.1148/ryct.220069. eCollection 2023 Feb.

Affiliation

¹ Department of Radiology (B.T.O.), Department of Radiology, Cardiothoracic Radiology Division (E.M.L., E.S., P.A.), Department of Cardiology (C.M.), Department of Pediatrics, Pediatric Cardiology Division (S.B., J.C.L., A.L.D.), and Department of Radiology, Pediatric Radiology Division (A.J.), University of Michigan Medical Center, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, B1D502, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5030; and School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich (T.M.).

Abstract

Purpose: To determine the impact of prolapsed volume on regurgitant volume (RegV), regurgitant fraction (RF), and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with mitral valve prolapse (MVP) using cardiac MRI.

Materials and methods: Patients with MVP and mitral regurgitation who underwent cardiac MRI from 2005 to 2020 were identified retrospectively from the electronic record. RegV is the difference between left ventricular stroke volume (LVSV) and aortic flow. Left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) and LVSV were obtained from volumetric cine images, with prolapsed volume inclusion (LVESVp, LVSVp) and exclusion (LVESVa, LVSVa) providing two estimates of RegV (RegVp, RegVa), RF (RFp, RFa), and LVEF (LVEFa, LVEFp). Interobserver agreement for LVESVp was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RegV was also calculated independently using measurements from mitral inflow and aortic net flow phase-contrast imaging as the reference standard (RegVg).

Results: The study included 19 patients (mean age, 28 years ± 16 [SD]; 10 male patients). Interobserver agreement for LVESVp was high (ICC, 0.98; 95% CI: 0.96, 0.99). Prolapsed volume inclusion resulted in higher LVESV (LVESVp: 95.4 mL ± 34.7 vs LVESVa: 82.4 mL ± 33.8; P < .001), lower LVSV (LVSVp: 100.5 mL ± 33.8 vs LVSVa: 113.5 mL ± 35.9; P < .001), and lower LVEF (LVEFp: 51.7% ± 5.7 vs LVEFa: 58.6% ± 6.3; P < .001). RegV was larger in magnitude when prolapsed volume was excluded (RegVa: 39.4 mL ± 21.0 vs RegVg: 25.8 mL ± 22.8; P = .02), with no evidence of a difference when including prolapsed volume (RegVp: 26.4 mL ± 16.4 vs RegVg: 25.8 mL ± 22.8; P > .99).

Conclusion: Measurements that included prolapsed volume most closely reflected mitral regurgitation severity, but inclusion of this volume resulted in a lower LVEF.Keywords: Cardiac, MRI© RSNA, 2023See also commentary by Lee and Markl in this issue.

Keywords: Cardiac; MRI.