Serdar Serinsoz, Remzi Akturk, Sibel Bayramoglu


Objective: Nowadays, non-invasive methods are emerging in the evaluation of cardiovascular diseases. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic performance of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging and cardiac ultrasound imaging (Echo) in cardiac patients diagnosed with Echo previously.

Methods: In total of 32 various cardiac patients with Echo findings including congenital and acquired heart pathologies who applied to our clinic were included in the study. The distribution of cardiac pathologies including valve dysfunctions, right and left ventricular wall lesions and movement disorders, atrioventricular hypertrophy, septal defect, pericardial effusion-mass, additional congenital or acquired vascular pathologies and additional thoracic pathology, age and gender correlations were determined. The CMR and Echo findings were compared statistically.

Results: It was found that 12 (37.5%) of the individuals were female, 20 (62.5%) were male, aged between 6 and 80 years with an average age of 29.9 years. The cardiac parameters were positive in 27 (84.4%) patients according to Echo and were positive in 22 (68.8%) patients according to CMR. There was no statistically significant correlation between CMR and Echo for cardiac pathology detection rates (p> 0.05).However, only 18 out of 22  patients who were positive on CMR were positive on Echo. CMR was superior in detecting congenital cardiac pathologies.

Conclusion: Echo has a diagnostic advantage and in general, CMR and Echo findings overlap in cases with valve dysfunctions, ventricular wall motion disorders, and hypertrophy, whereas we found that Echo findings were insufficient for diagnosis of congenital heart pathologies.


cardiac magnetic resonance, echocardiography, heart diseases, comparison

Full Text:



Global action plan for the prevention and control of NCDs 2013-2020..Geneva, World Health Organization.

Sahan C, Sozmen K, Doganay S, Unal B. Turkiye’de kalp ve damar hastaliklari sikliklarındaki degisimin degerlendirilmesi. Turk J Public Health. 2015;13(1):62-80.

Onat A, Karakoyun S, Akbas T, Karadeniz OF, Karadeniz Y, Cakır H et al. Turkish Adult Risk Factor survey 2014: Overall mortality and coronary disease incidence in Turkey’s geographic regions. Türk Kardiyol Dern Arş - Arch Turk Soc Cardiol. 2015;43(4):326–32.

Sade LE, Muderrisoglu IH. Kalp nakil hastalarinin guruntuleme ile degerlendirilmesi. Turkiye Klinikleri Kalp Damar Cerrahisi-Ozel Konular. 2018;10(2):102-8.

Yalin K, Guler TE, Sanli S. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging experience of a newly established cardiology center. Kocaeli Med J. 2018;7(1):2-6.

Dursun M, Yilmaz S, Yilmaz E, Yılmaz R, Onur I, Oflaz H et al. The utility of cardiac MRI in diagnosis of infective endocarditis: preliminary results. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2015; 21(1): 28–33.

Danad I, Szymonifka J, Twisk JWR, Norgaard BL, Zarins CK, Knaapen P et al. Diagnostic performance of cardiac imaging methods to diagnose ischaemia-causing coronary artery disease when directly compared with fractional flow reserve as a reference standard: a meta-analysis. Eur Heart J. 2017; 38 (13): 991-8.

Sachdeva S, Song X, Dham N, Heath DM, DeBiasi RL. Analysis of clinical parameters and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging as predictors of outcome in pediatric myocarditis. Am J Cardiol. 2015;115 (4):499-504.

Hamirani YS, Kramer CM. Cardiac MRI assessment of myocardial perfusion. Future Cardiol. 2014;10(3):349‐58.

Rajiah P, Desai MY, Kwon D, Flamm SD. MR imaging of myocardial infarction. RadioGraphics. 2013; 33(5):1383-412.

Salata BM, Singh P. Role of cardiac PET in clinical practice. Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med. 2017;19(12):93.

Rahman H, Ryan M, Lumley M, Modi B, McConkey H, Ellis H et al. Coronary microvascular dysfunction is associated with myocardial ischemia and abnormal coronary perfusion during exercise. Circulation. 2019;140(22):1805‐16.

Schwitter J, Wacker CM, Wilke N, Al Saadi N, Sauer E, Huettle K et al. MR-IMPACT II: Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Myocardial Perfusion Assessment in Coronary artery disease Trial: perfusion-cardiac magnetic resonance vs. single-photon emission computed tomography for the detection of coronary artery disease: a comparative multicentre, multivendor trial. Eur Heart J. 2013;34(10):775‐81.

Di Leo G, Fisci E, Secchi F, Ali M, Ambrogi F, Sconfienza LM et al. Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance angiography for detection of coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(10):3706-18.

Neglia D, Rovai D, Caselli C, Pietila M , Teresinska A , Aguade-Bruix S et al. Detection of significant coronary artery disease by noninvasive anatomical and functional imaging. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8(3):e002179.

Hoey E, Elassaly M, Ganeshan A, Watkin RW, Simpson H. The role of magnetic resonance imaging in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Quant Imaging Med Surg.2014; 4(5): 397–406.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2020 Serdar Serinsoz, Remzi Akturk, Sibel Bayramoglu

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.