| Literature DB >> 31893314 |
Alaa Roushdy1, Aya El Sayegh1, Yasmin Abdelrazek Ali2, Hebattalla Attia1, Azza El Fiky1, Maiy El Sayed1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Proper device size selection is a crucial step for successful ASD device closure. The current gold standard for device size selection is balloon sizing. Balloon sizing can be tedious, time consuming and increase fluoroscopy and procedure times as well as risk of complications. We aimed to establish a simple and accurate method for device size selection using three-dimensional echocardiographic interrogation of the ASD.This is a prospective observational study conducted over a period of 12 months. All patients underwent 2D TTE, three-dimensional echocardiographic assessment of the IAS and transesophageal echocardiogram. Comparison between echocardiographic variables was done using independent sample t test. Linear correlation was established between three dimensional echocardiographic variables and respective variables of device size and 2D TTE and TEE measurements.Entities:
Keywords: ASD; Device closure; three-dimensional echocardiography
Year: 2019 PMID: 31893314 PMCID: PMC6938529 DOI: 10.1186/s43044-019-0038-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Egypt Heart J ISSN: 1110-2608
Fig. 13D TEE image of the patient showing ASD dimensions, area and circumference measurements all visualized from the RA side
Fig. 23D TTE of the patient showing central moderate rounded secundum. ASD with dimensions, area and circumference measurements all visualized from RA side
Clinical and demographic characteristics of the patients
| Characteristics | Findings |
|---|---|
| Gender (M/F) | 18/32 |
| Mean age in years | 19.3 +/- 14.09 |
| Mean weight in Kg | 48.92 +/- 27.6 |
| Mean height in cm | 139.2 +/- 30.52 |
| Mean BSA in m2 | 1.35 +/- 0.526 |
| Associated cardiac anomalies | |
| None | (n=47)(96%) |
| AR | (n=1)(2%) |
| MVP/MR | (n=1)(2%) |
| PS | (n=1) (2%) |
| Mode of presentation | |
| Accidentally discovered | (n=23) (46%) |
| Shortness of breath | (n=18) (36%) |
| Palpitation | (n=5) (10%) |
| Atypical chest pain | (n=4) (8%) |
BSA= Body surface area, AR= Aortic regurgitation, MVP= Mitral valve prolapse, MR= Mitral regurgitation, PS= Pulmonary stenosis
Fig. 3Study population. (2D TTE: 2dimensional transthoracic echocardiography, 2D TEE: 2dimensional transesophageal echocardiography, 3D TTE: 3dimensional transthoracic echocardiography, 3D TEE: 3dimensional transesophageal echocardiography)
univariate analysis of 3D echo maximum ASD diameter versus 2D echo ASD diameters using independent sample T test
| General | GROUP TYPE | Paired T test | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3D echo maximum diameter | 2D echo diameters | t | P | |||||
| Sub costal biatrial diameter | 17.70 | +- | 6.03 | 15.85 | +- | 5.99 | -1.539 | 0.1270 |
| Sub costal sagittal diameter | 17.70 | +- | 6.03 | 15.96 | +- | 5.83 | -1.465 | 0.1462 |
| Parasternal short axis diameter | 17.70 | +- | 6.03 | 14.58 | +- | 7.02 | -2.355 | 0.0206 |
| 2D TTE maximum diameter | 17.70 | +- | 6.03 | 17.26 | +- | 6.52 | -0.348 | 0.7289 |
| 2D TEE maximum diameter | 17.70 | +- | 6.03 | 16.74 | +- | 6.33 | -0.779 | 0.4376 |
| Balloon stretched diameter | 17.70 | +- | 6.03 | 19.60 | +- | 5.37 | 1.290 | 0.2013 |
correlation between maximum and minimum ASD diameter measured by 3D echocardiogram and diameters measured by 2D TTE and 2D TEE
| 2D TTE ASD PSSX | 2D TTE ASD biatrial | 2D TTE ASD sagittal | 2D max diameter | TEE max diameter | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3D d1 | r | 0.829 | 0.790 | 0.723 | 0.780 | 0.895 |
| P | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | |
| 3D d2 | r | 0.871 | 0.826 | 0.730 | 0.792 | 0.902 |
| P | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | |
r= Pearson correlation coefficient
univariate analysis of 3D echo guided defect area and circumfrence versus device parameters using independent sample T test
| General | GROUP TYPE | Paired T test | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3D echo measurements | Device measurements | t | P | |||||
| 3D defect area versus device waist area in cm2 | 2.25 | +- | 1.53 | 3.38 | +- | 2.31 | 2.854 | 0.0053 |
| 3D defect circumference versus device waist circumference in cm | 5.36 | +- | 1.66 | 2.07 | +- | 3.45 | 11.291 | < 0.0001 |
| 3D defect area versus left atrial disc area in cm2 | 2.25 | +- | 1.53 | 9.16 | +- | 4.02 | 2.181 | 0.0316 |
| 3D defect circumference versus left atrial disc circumference in cm | 5.36 | +- | 1.66 | 2.25 | +- | 6.90 | 12.815 | < 0.0001 |
Fig. 4Linear correlation showing a strong significant correlation between 3D derived defect area and device size used for ASD transcatheter closure (left panel) and device waist area (right panel)
Fig. 5Linear correlation showing a strong significant correlation between 3D derived defect circumference and device size used for ASD transcatheter closure (left panel) and device waist circumference (right panel)