• Int J Cardiovasc Imaging · Feb 2021

    Comparative Study

    Quantification of aortic valve area: comparison of different methods of echocardiography with 3-D scan of the excised valve.

    • Samira Shirazi, Fatemeh Golmohammadi, Anahita Tavoosi, Mehrdad Salehi, Farnoosh Larti, Akram Sardari, Babak Geraiely, Mehrzad Rahmanian, Kianoush Saberi, and Roya Sattarzadeh Badkoubeh.
    • Cardiology Department, Imam Khomeini Hospital Complex, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Keshavarz Boulevard, P.O.Box: 1419733141, Tehran, Iran.
    • Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2021 Feb 1; 37 (2): 529-538.

    AbstractAccurate determination of severity of aortic valve stenosis (AS) by aortic valve area (AVA) is essential for choosing the best treatment strategy. We compared AVA quantified by 4 different in vivo echocardiographic methods with AVA measured by 3D ex vivo scanning of the excised AV. The data on 38 patients who underwent aortic valve replacement were assessed. The AVA was determined by 4 echocardiographic methods of planimetry in 2D transesophageal echocardiography [planimetry (2D-TEE)], plainemetry by multiplanar reconstruction approach in 3D transesophageal echocardiography [MPR (3D-TEE)], and two continuity equation (CE) approaches; conventional CE (2D-TTE) in which left ventricular outflow tract [LVOT] area derived by LVOT diameter obtained in 2D transthoracic echocardiography and CE (3D-TEE) in which LVOT area obtained by 3D MPR. After the surgical removal of the AV, AVA was determined by 3D ex vivo scanning. Lowest AVA mean difference with 3D ex vivo scanning was found between CE (2D-TTE), followed by CE (3D-TEE). Planimetry (2D-TEE) in male patients as well as severely and non-severely calcified valves revealed a significant higher AVA mean difference with 3D ex vivo scanning than CE (2D-TTE) and CE (3D-TEE) methods. However, with a nonsignificant effect, CE (2D-TTE) and planimetry (2D-TEE) had the least mean difference with 3D ex vivo scanning possibly due to less frequent bicuspid AV in females. CE (2D-TTE) was more accurate than other methods of AVA calculation. Moreover, CE (3D-TEE) and MPR (3D-TEE) methods had acceptable accuracy in comparison with planimetry (2D-TEE) for definition of AS severity.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

Want more great medical articles?

Keep up to date with a free trial of metajournal, personalized for your practice.
1,624,503 articles already indexed!

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.