AIMS: Planimetry measured by two-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography (TTE, MVA2D) is the reference method for the evaluation of the severity of mitral stenosis (MS) but requires experienced operators and good echocardiographic windows. Real-time three-dimensional transoesophageal echocardiography (3D-TEE, MVA3D) may overcome these limitations but its accuracy has never been evaluated. METHODS AND RESULTS: We prospectively enrolled 80 patients (58±15 years, 86% female) referred for MS evaluation who underwent, within 1 week, a clinically indicated TTE and TEE. MVA2D was measured by experienced operators (Level III), MVA3D by one experienced and one non-experienced (Level I) operators blinded of any clinical or TTE information. MVA3D measured by the experienced operator [1.11±0.32 cm2; median, 1.1 cm2; range (0.45-2.20)] did not differ from and correlated well with MVA2D [1.10±0.34 cm2; median, 1.05 cm2; range (0.45-2.30)], P=0.87; r=0.79, P<0.0001; ICC=0.79) and mean difference between methods was small (+0.004±0.21 cm2). MVA3D measured by the non-experienced operator [1.08±0.34 cm2; median 1.02 cm2; range (0.45-2.23)] also did not differ from and correlated well with MVA2D measured by experienced operators (P=0.25; r=0.86, P<0.0001; mean difference -0.02±0.18 cm2; ICC=0.86). Intra and interobserver variability were 0.02±0.25 and 0.01±0.33 cm2. CONCLUSION: 3D-TEE provides accurate and reproducible MVA measurements similar to 2D planimetry performed by experienced operators. Thus, 3D-TEE could be considered as a second-line alternative tool for the evaluation of MS severity in patients with poor echocardiographic windows or for team less accustomed to evaluate MS patients.
AIMS: Planimetry measured by two-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography (TTE, MVA2D) is the reference method for the evaluation of the severity of mitral stenosis (MS) but requires experienced operators and good echocardiographic windows. Real-time three-dimensional transoesophageal echocardiography (3D-TEE, MVA3D) may overcome these limitations but its accuracy has never been evaluated. METHODS AND RESULTS: We prospectively enrolled 80 patients (58±15 years, 86% female) referred for MS evaluation who underwent, within 1 week, a clinically indicated TTE and TEE. MVA2D was measured by experienced operators (Level III), MVA3D by one experienced and one non-experienced (Level I) operators blinded of any clinical or TTE information. MVA3D measured by the experienced operator [1.11±0.32 cm2; median, 1.1 cm2; range (0.45-2.20)] did not differ from and correlated well with MVA2D [1.10±0.34 cm2; median, 1.05 cm2; range (0.45-2.30)], P=0.87; r=0.79, P<0.0001; ICC=0.79) and mean difference between methods was small (+0.004±0.21 cm2). MVA3D measured by the non-experienced operator [1.08±0.34 cm2; median 1.02 cm2; range (0.45-2.23)] also did not differ from and correlated well with MVA2D measured by experienced operators (P=0.25; r=0.86, P<0.0001; mean difference -0.02±0.18 cm2; ICC=0.86). Intra and interobserver variability were 0.02±0.25 and 0.01±0.33 cm2. CONCLUSION: 3D-TEE provides accurate and reproducible MVA measurements similar to 2D planimetry performed by experienced operators. Thus, 3D-TEE could be considered as a second-line alternative tool for the evaluation of MS severity in patients with poor echocardiographic windows or for team less accustomed to evaluate MS patients.