These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Quantitative assessment of primary mitral regurgitation using left ventricular volumes obtained with new automated three-dimensional transthoracic echocardiographic software: A comparison with 3-Tesla cardiac magnetic resonance.
    Author: Levy F, Marechaux S, Iacuzio L, Schouver ED, Castel AL, Toledano M, Rusek S, Dor V, Tribouilloy C, Dreyfus G.
    Journal: Arch Cardiovasc Dis; 2018; 111(8-9):507-517. PubMed ID: 29610031.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Quantitative assessment of primary mitral regurgitation (MR) using left ventricular (LV) volumes obtained with three-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography (3D TTE) recently showed encouraging results. Nevertheless, 3D TTE is not incorporated into everyday practice, as current LV chamber quantification software products are time consuming. AIMS: To investigate the accuracy and reproducibility of new automated fast 3D TTE software (HeartModelA.I.; Philips Healthcare, Andover, MA, USA) for the quantification of LV volumes and MR severity in patients with isolated degenerative primary MR; and to compare regurgitant volume (RV) obtained with 3D TTE with a cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) reference. METHODS: Fifty-three patients (37 men; mean age 64±12 years) with at least mild primary isolated MR, and having comprehensive 3D TTE and CMR studies within 24h, were eligible for inclusion. MR RV was calculated using the proximal isovelocity surface area (PISA) method and the volumetric method (total LV stroke volume minus aortic stroke volume) with either CMR or 3D TTE. RESULTS: Inter- and intraobserver reproducibility of 3D TTE was excellent (coefficient of variation≤10%) for LV volumes. MR RV was similar using CMR and 3D TTE (57±23mL vs 56±28mL; P=0.22), but was significantly higher using the PISA method (69±30mL; P<0.05 compared with CMR and 3D TTE). The PISA method consistently overestimated MR RV compared with CMR (bias 12±21mL), while no significant bias was found between 3D TTE and CMR (bias 2±14mL). Concordance between echocardiography and CMR was higher using 3D TTE MR grading (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]=0.89) than with PISA MR grading (ICC=0.78). Complete agreement with CMR grading was more frequent with 3D TTE than with the PISA method (76% vs 63%). CONCLUSION: 3D TTE RV assessment using the new generation of automated software correlates well with CMR in patients with isolated degenerative primary MR.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]