BACKGROUND: Mitral annulus assessment is of great importance for the diagnosis and treatment of mitral valve disease. The present study sought to assess the value of real-time three-dimensional echocardiography for the assessment of true mitral annulus diameter (MAD). METHODS: One hundred and fifty patients (mean age 38 +/- 18 years) with adequate two-dimensional (2D) echocardiographic image quality underwent assessment of MAD(2D) and MAD(3D) (with real-time three-dimensional echocardiography). In a subgroup of 30 patients true MAD was validated with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). RESULTS: There was a good interobserver agreement for MAD(2D) (mean difference = -0.25 +/- 2.90 mm, agreement: -3.16, 2.66) and MAD(3D) (mean difference = 0.29 +/- 2.03, agreement = -1.74, 2.32). Measurements of MAD(2D) and MAD(3D) were well correlated (R = 0.81, P < 0.0001). However, MAD(3D) was significantly larger than MAD(2D) (3.7 +/- 0.9 vs. 3.3 +/- 0.8 cm, P < 0.0001). In the subgroup of 30 patients with MRI validation, MAD(3D) and MAD(MRI) were significantly larger than MAD(2D) (3.3 +/- 0.5 and 3.4 +/- 0.5 cm vs. 2.9 +/- 0.4 cm, both P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between MAD(MRI) and MAD(3D). CONCLUSION: MAD(3D) can be reliably measured and is superior to MAD(2D) in the assessment of true mitral annular size.
BACKGROUND: Mitral annulus assessment is of great importance for the diagnosis and treatment of mitral valve disease. The present study sought to assess the value of real-time three-dimensional echocardiography for the assessment of true mitral annulus diameter (MAD). METHODS: One hundred and fifty patients (mean age 38 +/- 18 years) with adequate two-dimensional (2D) echocardiographic image quality underwent assessment of MAD(2D) and MAD(3D) (with real-time three-dimensional echocardiography). In a subgroup of 30 patients true MAD was validated with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). RESULTS: There was a good interobserver agreement for MAD(2D) (mean difference = -0.25 +/- 2.90 mm, agreement: -3.16, 2.66) and MAD(3D) (mean difference = 0.29 +/- 2.03, agreement = -1.74, 2.32). Measurements of MAD(2D) and MAD(3D) were well correlated (R = 0.81, P < 0.0001). However, MAD(3D) was significantly larger than MAD(2D) (3.7 +/- 0.9 vs. 3.3 +/- 0.8 cm, P < 0.0001). In the subgroup of 30 patients with MRI validation, MAD(3D) and MAD(MRI) were significantly larger than MAD(2D) (3.3 +/- 0.5 and 3.4 +/- 0.5 cm vs. 2.9 +/- 0.4 cm, both P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between MAD(MRI) and MAD(3D). CONCLUSION: MAD(3D) can be reliably measured and is superior to MAD(2D) in the assessment of true mitral annular size.
Authors: Dennis G Mihalatos; Sunil T Mathew; Aasha S Gopal; Satheesh Joseph; Roger Grimson; Nathaniel Reichek Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Monvadi B Srichai; Richard A Grimm; Arthur E Stillman; A Marc Gillinov; L Leonardo Rodriguez; Michael L Lieber; Abigail Lara; Joan A Weaver; Patrick M McCarthy; Richard D White Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: J H Gorman; K B Gupta; J T Streicher; R C Gorman; B M Jackson; M B Ratcliffe; D K Bogen; L H Edmunds Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 1996-09 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Attila Nemes; Györgyike Ágnes Piros; Péter Domsik; Anita Kalapos; Csaba Lengyel; Tamás T Várkonyi; Andrea Orosz; Tamás Forster Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2015-12
Authors: Maria von Stumm; Florian Dudde; Theresa Holst; Tatjana Sequeira-Gross; Jonas Pausch; Lisa Müller; Christoph R Sinning; Hermann Reichenspurner; E Girdauskas Journal: Open Heart Date: 2021-01
Authors: Attila Nemes; Ashraf M Anwar; Kadir Caliskan; Osama I I Soliman; Bas M van Dalen; Marcel L Geleijnse; Folkert J ten Cate Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2007-09-12 Impact factor: 2.357