R D Rifkin1, K Harper, D Tighe. 1. Department of Medicine, Baystate Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Springfield, Massachusetts 01199, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to 1) compare the accuracy of the proximal isovelocity surface area (PISA) and Doppler pressure half-time methods and planimetry for echocardiographic estimation of mitral valve area; 2) evaluate the effect of atrial fibrillation on the accuracy of the PISA method; and 3) assess factors used to correct PISA area estimates for leaflet angulation. BACKGROUND: Despite recognized limitations of traditional echocardiographic methods for estimating mitral valve area, there has been no systematic comparison with the PISA method in a single cohort. METHODS: Area estimates were obtained in patients with mitral stenosis by the Gorlin hydraulic formula, PISA and pressure half-time method in 48 patients and by planimetry in 36. Two different factors were used to correct PISA estimates for leaflet angle (theta): 1) plane-angle factor (theta/180 [theta in degrees]); and 2) solid-angle factor [1-cos(theta/2)]. RESULTS: After exclusion of patients with significant mitral regurgitation, the correlation between Gorlin and PISA areas (0.88) was significantly greater (p < 0.04) than that between Gorlin and pressure half-time (0.78) or Gorlin and planimetry (0.72). The correlation between Gorlin and PISA area estimates was lower in atrial fibrillation than sinus rhythm (0.69 vs. 0.93), but the standard error of the estimate was only slightly greater (0.24 vs. 0.19 cm2). The average ratio of the solid- to the plane-angle correction factors was approximately equal to previously reported values of the orifice contraction coefficient for tapering stenosis. CONCLUSIONS: 1) The accuracy of PISA area estimates in mitral stenosis is at least comparable to those of planimetry and pressure half-time. 2) Reasonable accuracy of the PISA method is possible in irregular rhythms. 3) A simple leaflet angle correction factor, theta/180 (theta in degrees), yields the physical orifice area because it overestimates the vena contracta area by a factor approximately equal to the contraction coefficient for a tapering stenosis.
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to 1) compare the accuracy of the proximal isovelocity surface area (PISA) and Doppler pressure half-time methods and planimetry for echocardiographic estimation of mitral valve area; 2) evaluate the effect of atrial fibrillation on the accuracy of the PISA method; and 3) assess factors used to correct PISA area estimates for leaflet angulation. BACKGROUND: Despite recognized limitations of traditional echocardiographic methods for estimating mitral valve area, there has been no systematic comparison with the PISA method in a single cohort. METHODS: Area estimates were obtained in patients with mitral stenosis by the Gorlin hydraulic formula, PISA and pressure half-time method in 48 patients and by planimetry in 36. Two different factors were used to correct PISA estimates for leaflet angle (theta): 1) plane-angle factor (theta/180 [theta in degrees]); and 2) solid-angle factor [1-cos(theta/2)]. RESULTS: After exclusion of patients with significant mitral regurgitation, the correlation between Gorlin and PISA areas (0.88) was significantly greater (p < 0.04) than that between Gorlin and pressure half-time (0.78) or Gorlin and planimetry (0.72). The correlation between Gorlin and PISA area estimates was lower in atrial fibrillation than sinus rhythm (0.69 vs. 0.93), but the standard error of the estimate was only slightly greater (0.24 vs. 0.19 cm2). The average ratio of the solid- to the plane-angle correction factors was approximately equal to previously reported values of the orifice contraction coefficient for tapering stenosis. CONCLUSIONS: 1) The accuracy of PISA area estimates in mitral stenosis is at least comparable to those of planimetry and pressure half-time. 2) Reasonable accuracy of the PISA method is possible in irregular rhythms. 3) A simple leaflet angle correction factor, theta/180 (theta in degrees), yields the physical orifice area because it overestimates the vena contracta area by a factor approximately equal to the contraction coefficient for a tapering stenosis.
Authors: Mehmet Uzun; Oben Baysan; Kursad Erinc; Mustafa Ozkan; Cemal Sag; Celal Genc; Hayrettin Karaeren; Mehmet Yokusoglu; Ersoy Isik Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Namik Kemal Eryol; Ali Dogan; Ibrahim Ozdogru; Mehmet Tugrul Inanc; Mehmet Gungor Kaya; Nihat Kalay Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2006-12-21 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Ann K Riegel; Raila Busch; Scott Segal; John A Fox; Holger K Eltzschig; Stanton K Shernan Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-11-08 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jan N Hilberath; Holger K Eltzschig; Stanton K Shernan; Andrea H Worthington; Sary F Aranki; Martina Nowak-Machen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-09-02 Impact factor: 3.240