Why the study?
To evaluate how fully automated and semi-automated 3D-TEE methods perform compared to conventional manual TEE and gold-standard MDCT for aortic annulus sizing in both expert and novice operators.
Do automated and semi-automated 3D-TEE methods provide comparable aortic annulus sizing to manual TEE and MDCT for expert and novice operators in patients with severe aortic stenosis?
Do automated and semi-automated 3D-TEE methods provide comparable aortic annulus sizing to manual TEE and MDCT for expert and novice operators in patients with severe aortic stenosis?
Automated and semi-automated 3D-TEE software provides reliable aortic annulus sizing comparable to MDCT, particularly aiding novice operators by reducing bias and improving reproducibility.
Caution against sole reliance on automated 3D-TEE due to underestimation; leaves open validation of manual methods for TAVR planning.
3D-transesophageal echocardiography (3D-TEE) is an alternative to multidetector row computed tomography (MDCT) for aortic annulus (AoA) sizing in preparation for Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We aim to evaluate how the fully automated (auto) and semi-automated (SA) TEE methods perform compared to conventional manual TEE method and the gold standard MDCT for annulus sizing both in expert and novice operators. In this prospective cohort study, eighty-nine patients with severe aortic stenosis underwent multimodality imaging with 3D-TEE and MDCT. Annular measurements were collected by expert echocardiographers using 3D auto, SA and manual methods and compared to MDCT. A novice in the field of echocardiography retrospectively measured the AoA for all patients using the same methods. TEE measurements, independently of the method used, had good to very good agreement to MDCT. They significantly underestimated aortic annular area and circumference vs. MDCT with the auto method underestimating it the most and the manual method the least (6.5% and 1.3% respectively for area and circumference). For experts, the manual TEE method offered the least systematic bias while the SA method had narrower limits of agreement (LOA). For the novice operator, SA method provided the least bias and narrower LOA vs. MDCT. There is good agreement between novice and experts for all 3 TEE methods but better agreement with auto and SA methods as opposed to manual one. Our study supports the use of 3D-TEE as a complementary method to MDCT for aortic annular sizing. The newer auto and SA software, that requires minimal operator intervention, is an easy to use, reliable and reproducible tool for aortic annulus sizing for experienced operators, and especially less experienced ones.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Massie et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: