Is There Concordance Between CMR and Echocardiography in Assessing Aortic Stenosis Severity?

Background: Although echocardiography has constituted the primary method of evaluating cardiac disease for many years now, using another method to complete the examination-especially in dubious situations such as calcified valvular diseases or poor echocardiography window-seems necessary. In studies in different countries, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) has been introduced as an acceptable noninvasive complementary method for the evaluation of the severity of aortic stenosis (AS) with good reproducibility and reliable results in comparison with echocardiography. Methods: In a cross-sectional survey in Rajaie Cardiovascular, Medical, and Research Center's CMR Department between 2009 and 2014, all patients with a diagnosis of AS were evaluated for the severity of AS in terms of peak velocity and peak gradients via both echocardiography and CMR (velocity-encoded method), and the results were analyzed by SPSS using the t-test and ANOVA. Results: After the exclusion of patients with insufficient data, 26 patients were included and evaluated. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups (CMR vs. echocardiography) or between the subgroups (considering cardiovascular risk factors, ejection fraction, and valvular features). Conclusions: CMR was comparable with echocardiography in evaluating AS severity in our study and was not inferior to echocardiography, although more studies are recommended for a more in-depth evaluation.