BACKGROUND: Two commercial software systems have become available for quantitation of mitral leaflet and annulus geometry based on three-dimensional (3D) transesophageal echocardiographic (3DTEE) images. The aim of this study is to investigate the accuracy and compatibility of the three-dimensional (3D) measurements by Real View(®) and MVQ(®). METHODS: 3DTEE images were obtained from phantom models with saddle-shaped annulus of mitral valve prolapse and mitral valve tenting. From reconstructed 3D data, prolapse and tenting volume were calculated by both Real View(®) and MVQ(®) and compared with the actual volume. RESULTS: The volume of the phantom models with saddle-shaped annulus measured by Real View(®) (tenting r = 0.99, prolapse r = 0.99) and MVQ(®) (tenting r = 0.99, prolapse r = 0.99) showed good agreement with the actual volume. However, significant difference between Real View(®) and MVQ(®) was observed in the result of quantification (tenting 2.27 ± 1.5 ml versus 2.53 ± 1.6 ml, prolapse 2.55 ± 1.7 ml versus 2.31 ± 1.6 ml, both P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although the 2 commercially available systems allow accurate quantitative measurements of the 3D volume, discrepancy in the quantified value as a result of differences in the estimation of annular level is observed. Therefore, we should take into account the characteristics of each software when interpreting analytical results.
BACKGROUND: Two commercial software systems have become available for quantitation of mitral leaflet and annulus geometry based on three-dimensional (3D) transesophageal echocardiographic (3DTEE) images. The aim of this study is to investigate the accuracy and compatibility of the three-dimensional (3D) measurements by Real View(®) and MVQ(®). METHODS: 3DTEE images were obtained from phantom models with saddle-shaped annulus of mitral valve prolapse and mitral valve tenting. From reconstructed 3D data, prolapse and tenting volume were calculated by both Real View(®) and MVQ(®) and compared with the actual volume. RESULTS: The volume of the phantom models with saddle-shaped annulus measured by Real View(®) (tenting r = 0.99, prolapse r = 0.99) and MVQ(®) (tenting r = 0.99, prolapse r = 0.99) showed good agreement with the actual volume. However, significant difference between Real View(®) and MVQ(®) was observed in the result of quantification (tenting 2.27 ± 1.5 ml versus 2.53 ± 1.6 ml, prolapse 2.55 ± 1.7 ml versus 2.31 ± 1.6 ml, both P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although the 2 commercially available systems allow accurate quantitative measurements of the 3D volume, discrepancy in the quantified value as a result of differences in the estimation of annular level is observed. Therefore, we should take into account the characteristics of each software when interpreting analytical results.
Authors: A M Gillinov; D M Cosgrove; T Shiota; J Qin; H Tsujino; W J Stewart; J D Thomas; M Porqueddu; J A White; E H Blackstone Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Benoit de Varennes; Rakesh Chaturvedi; Surita Sidhu; Annie V Côté; William Li Pi Shan; Caroline Goyer; Roupen Hatzakorzian; Jean Buithieu; Allan Sniderman Journal: Circulation Date: 2009-05-18 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: R A Levine; M D Handschumacher; A J Sanfilippo; A A Hagege; P Harrigan; J E Marshall; A E Weyman Journal: Circulation Date: 1989-09 Impact factor: 29.690