| Literature DB >> 35379261 |
Mesut Gun1, Misbaou Barry2, Yohann Bohbot3, Christophe Tribouilloy3, Gilles Touati2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In mitral insufficiency, trans-esophageal echocardiography (TEE) analysis of the mitral valve is an indispensable and irreplaceable examination to establish precisely the type of surgical repair to be performed and the exact length of neo-chordae to be used for an anatomical repair. The aim of our study is to find a predictive model of the Echographic Measurement (EM) variable according to the Manual Measurement (MM) variable of the mitral valve chordae, when the echocardiography measurement is not feasible. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective study on 191 patients undergoing mitral valve repair. The sex ratio (M/F) is 2.13 (130 men and 61 women). The collection of data of mitral chordae measurements performed echographically in preoperatively conditions, and then manually in intraoperatively conditions from January 2008 to December 2016 was made from the medical records of patients at the cardiology and cardiac surgery department of the University Hospital Center of Amiens in Picardy.Entities:
Keywords: Correlation; Echocardiography measurement; Linear analysis; Manual measurement; Mitral tendinous chordae; Mitral valve repair; Prediction
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35379261 PMCID: PMC8981775 DOI: 10.1186/s13019-022-01816-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cardiothorac Surg ISSN: 1749-8090 Impact factor: 1.637
Characteristics of study population (N = 191)
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Age—mean ± SD (years) | 68 ± 13 |
| Sex-ratio (M/F) | 2.13 |
| MM—mean ± SD (mm) | 23 ± 2.50 |
| EM—mean (mm) | 24 ± 2.40 |
| MM—minimum (mm) | 16 |
| MM—maximum (mm) | 31 |
| EM—minimum (mm) | 17 |
| EM—maximum (mm) | 31.5 |
MM, Manual measurement; EM, echographic measurement; mm, milimeter
Fig. 1Echographic measurement (ME) of the mitral chordae
Fig. 2Manual measurement (MM) of mitral chordae
Normality tets of manual measurements and echographic measurements
| Test | ||
|---|---|---|
| Shapiro–Wilk | 0.11 | 0.81 |
| Kolmogorov–Smirnov | 0.08 | 0.15 |
| Cramer–Von Mises | 0.14 | 0.25 |
| Anderson–Darling | 0.11 | 0.25 |
Fig. 3Distribution of manual measurements (millimeter)
Fig. 4Distribution of echographic measurements (millimeter)
Pearson correlation statistics (r)
| Variable | With variable | N | Sampling correlation | Confidence interval (95%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EM | MM | 191 | 0.897 | 0.865 | 0.921 | 0.0000 |
Fig. 5Correlation between echographic and manual measurements (MM and EM)
Fig. 6a Distribution of echographic measurement residues (validate the model). b Residues of echographic measurements (validate the model). c Residues by predicted value for echographic measurement (validate the model)
Fig. 7Adjustment curve for echographic measurements (ME) according to manual measurements (MM)
| d.d.l | α | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.10 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.01 | |
| 1 | 0.9877 | 0.9969 | 0.9995 | 0.9999 |
| 2 | 0.9000 | 0.9500 | 0.9800 | 0.9900 |
| 3 | 0.8054 | 0.8783 | 0.9343 | 0.9587 |
| 4 | 0.7293 | 0.8114 | 0.8822 | 0.9172 |
| 5 | 0.6694 | 0.7545 | 0.8329 | 0.8745 |
| 6 | 0.6215 | 0.7067 | 0.7887 | 0.8343 |
| 7 | 0.5822 | 0.6664 | 0.7498 | 0.7977 |
| 8 | 0.5494 | 0.6319 | 0.7155 | 0.7646 |
| 9 | 0.5214 | 0.6021 | 0.6851 | 0.7348 |
| 10 | 0.4973 | 0.5760 | 0.6581 | 0.7079 |
| 11 | 0.4762 | 0.5529 | 0.6339 | 0.6835 |
| 12 | 0.4575 | 0.5324 | 0.6120 | 0.6614 |
| 13 | 0.4409 | 0.5139 | 0.5923 | 0.6411 |
| 14 | 0.4259 | 0.4973 | 0.5742 | 0.6226 |
| 15 | 0.4124 | 0.4821 | 0.5577 | 0.6055 |
| 16 | 0.4000 | 0.4683 | 0.5425 | 0.5897 |
| 17 | 0.3887 | 0.4555 | 0.5285 | 0.5751 |
| 18 | 0.3783 | 0.4438 | 0.5155 | 0.5614 |
| 19 | 0.3687 | 0.4329 | 0.5034 | 0.5487 |
| 20 | 0.3598 | 0.4227 | 0.4921 | 0.5368 |
| 25 | 0.3233 | 0.3809 | 0.4451 | 0.4869 |
| 30 | 0.2960 | 0.3494 | 0.4093 | 0.4487 |
| 35 | 0.2746 | 0.3246 | 0.3810 | 0.4182 |
| 40 | 0.2573 | 0.3044 | 0.3578 | 0.3932 |
| 45 | 0.2428 | 0.2875 | 0.3384 | 0.3721 |
| 50 | 0.2306 | 0.2732 | 0.3218 | 0.3541 |
| 60 | 0.2108 | 0.2500 | 0.2948 | 0.3248 |
| 70 | 0.1954 | 0.2319 | 0.2737 | 0.3017 |
| 80 | 0.1829 | 0.2172 | 0.2565 | 0.2830 |
| 90 | 0.1726 | 0.2050 | 0.2422 | 0.2673 |
| 100 | 0.1638 | 0.1946 | 0.2301 | 0.2540 |
Correlation coefficient table (Schwartz, Lazar and Papoz, 1995; p.125)