BACKGROUND: Accurate assessment of aortic valve area (AVA) is important for clinical decision-making in patients with aortic valve stenosis (AS). The role of three-dimensional echocardiography (3D) in the quantitative assessment of AS has not been evaluated so far. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the reproducibility and accuracy of real-time three-dimensional echocardiography (RT3D) and 3D-guided two-dimensional planimetry (3D/2D) for assessment of AS, and compare these results with those of standard echocardiography and cardiac catheterisation (Cath). METHODS: AVA was estimated by transthoracic echo-Doppler (TTE) and by direct planimetry using transoesophageal echocardiography (TEE) as well as RT3D and 3D/2D. 15 patients underwent assessment of AS by Cath. RESULTS: 33 patients with AS were studied (20 men, mean (SD) age 70 (14) years). Bland-Altman analysis showed good agreement and small absolute differences in AVA between all planimetric methods (RT3D vs 3D/2D: -0.01 (0.15) cm(2); 3D/2D vs TEE: 0.05 (0.22) cm(2); RT3D vs TEE: 0.06 (0.26) cm(2)). The agreement between AVA assessment by 2D-TTE and planimetry was -0.01 (0.20) cm(2) for 3D/2D; 0.00 (0.15) cm(2) for RT3D; and -0.05 (0.30) cm(2) for TEE. Correlation coefficient r for AVA assessment between each of 3D/2D, RT3D, TEE planimetry and Cath was 0.81, 0.86 and 0.71, respectively. The intraobserver variability was similar for all methods, but interobserver variability was better for 3D techniques than for TEE (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The 3D echo methods for planimetry of the AVA showed good agreement with the standard TEE technique and flow-derived methods. Compared with AV planimetry by TEE, both 3D methods were at least as good as TEE and had better reproducibility. 3D aortic valve planimetry is a novel non-invasive technique, which provides an accurate and reliable quantitative assessment of AS.
BACKGROUND: Accurate assessment of aortic valve area (AVA) is important for clinical decision-making in patients with aortic valve stenosis (AS). The role of three-dimensional echocardiography (3D) in the quantitative assessment of AS has not been evaluated so far. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the reproducibility and accuracy of real-time three-dimensional echocardiography (RT3D) and 3D-guided two-dimensional planimetry (3D/2D) for assessment of AS, and compare these results with those of standard echocardiography and cardiac catheterisation (Cath). METHODS: AVA was estimated by transthoracic echo-Doppler (TTE) and by direct planimetry using transoesophageal echocardiography (TEE) as well as RT3D and 3D/2D. 15 patients underwent assessment of AS by Cath. RESULTS: 33 patients with AS were studied (20 men, mean (SD) age 70 (14) years). Bland-Altman analysis showed good agreement and small absolute differences in AVA between all planimetric methods (RT3D vs 3D/2D: -0.01 (0.15) cm(2); 3D/2D vs TEE: 0.05 (0.22) cm(2); RT3D vs TEE: 0.06 (0.26) cm(2)). The agreement between AVA assessment by 2D-TTE and planimetry was -0.01 (0.20) cm(2) for 3D/2D; 0.00 (0.15) cm(2) for RT3D; and -0.05 (0.30) cm(2) for TEE. Correlation coefficient r for AVA assessment between each of 3D/2D, RT3D, TEE planimetry and Cath was 0.81, 0.86 and 0.71, respectively. The intraobserver variability was similar for all methods, but interobserver variability was better for 3D techniques than for TEE (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The 3D echo methods for planimetry of the AVA showed good agreement with the standard TEE technique and flow-derived methods. Compared with AV planimetry by TEE, both 3D methods were at least as good as TEE and had better reproducibility. 3D aortic valve planimetry is a novel non-invasive technique, which provides an accurate and reliable quantitative assessment of AS.
Authors: A V Brasch; H Luo; S S Khan; J M Mirocha; M DeRobertis; T Z Naqvi; D S Jeon; R J Siegel Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2001-11-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Robert O Bonow; Blase A Carabello; Kanu Chatterjee; Antonio C de Leon; David P Faxon; Michael D Freed; William H Gaasch; Bruce Whitney Lytle; Rick A Nishimura; Patrick T O'Gara; Robert A O'Rourke; Catherine M Otto; Pravin M Shah; Jack S Shanewise; Sidney C Smith; Alice K Jacobs; Cynthia D Adams; Jeffrey L Anderson; Elliott M Antman; Valentin Fuster; Jonathan L Halperin; Loren F Hiratzka; Sharon A Hunt; Bruce W Lytle; Rick Nishimura; Richard L Page; Barbara Riegel Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2006-08-01 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Lissa Sugeng; Lynn Weinert; Georgeanne Lammertin; Patrick Thomas; Kirk T Spencer; Jeanne M Decara; Victor Mor-Avi; Dezheng Huo; Ted Feldman; Roberto M Lang Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Shelton D Caruthers; Shiow Jiuan Lin; Peggy Brown; Mary P Watkins; Todd A Williams; Katherine A Lehr; Samuel A Wickline Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-10-20 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: José Zamorano; Pedro Cordeiro; Lissa Sugeng; Leopoldo Perez de Isla; Lynn Weinert; Carlos Macaya; Enrique Rodríguez; Roberto M Lang Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2004-06-02 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Dan Gilon; Edward G Cape; Mark D Handschumacher; Jae Kwan Song; Joan Solheim; Michael VanAuker; Mary Etta E King; Robert A Levine Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2002-10-16 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Anna S John; Thorsten Dill; Roland R Brandt; Matthias Rau; Wolfgang Ricken; Georg Bachmann; Christian W Hamm Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2003-08-06 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Arminder S Jassar; Melissa M Levack; Ricardo D Solorzano; Alison M Pouch; Giovanni Ferrari; Albert T Cheung; Victor A Ferrari; Joseph H Gorman; Robert C Gorman; Benjamin M Jackson Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2014-02-08 Impact factor: 4.330