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: Intraoperative comparison of 2D versus 3D transesophageal echocardiography for quantitative assessment of mitral regurgitation.
    Author: Lovhale PS, Gadhinglajkar S, Sreedhar R, Sukesan S, Pillai V.
    Journal: Ann Card Anaesth; 2021; 24(2):163-171. PubMed ID: 33884971.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Effective regurgitant orifice area (EROA) can be represented by 3D echocardiographic vena contracta cross-sectional area (3D-VCA) as a reference method for the quantification of mitral regurgitation (MR) without making any geometrical assumptions. EROA can also be derived from 3D PISA technique with a hemispherical (HS) or hemielliptical (HE) assumption of the proximal flow convergence. However, it is not clear whether HS-PISA and HE-PISA has better agreement with 3D-VCA. AIMS: This study was conducted to compare the EROA and Rvol obtained from 3D-VCA with those obtained from 2D-VC, 2D-HS-PISA, 3D-HS-PISA, and 3D-HE-PISA. SETTING: Tertiary care hospital. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After anesthesia induction, 43 consecutive patients were evaluated with RT-3D-TEE after acquiring images from midesophegeal views and performing the offline analysis of volume dataset. 3D-VCA was measured using multiplanar reconstruction mode and EROA and regurgitant volume were estimated using HS-PISA and HE-PISA methods. The HE-PISA was calculated by using the Knud Thomsen formula. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Agreement between methods to estimate EROA and regurgitant volumes were tested using Bland-Altman analysis. The interobserver variability and intraobserver variability were assessed using an intraclass correlation coefficient. RESULTS: The EROA estimated by 3D-VCA was larger than EROA obtained by 2D-HS-PISA and 3D-HS-PISA, which were significantly greater than 3D-HE-PISA. 3D-HS-PISA-EROA showed the best agreement with 3D-VCA (bias: 0.21; limits of agreement: -0.01 to 0.41; SD: 0.1). Correlation between various methods as compared to 3D-VCA was better in the organic MR group than functional MR group. CONCLUSION: 3D-HS-PISA showed the best agreement with 3D-VCA compared to other PISA methods. Better correlation between PISA-EROA and 3D-VCA was observed in patients with organic MR than functional MR.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]