Key result
Intraoperative 2D PISA and 3D VCA overestimate MR volume by ~12 ml versus 3D volumetric methods.
Why the study?
Intraoperative quantification of mitral regurgitation is sometimes necessary to assess severity, prompting a comparison of 2D PISA and 3D VCA with 3D volumetric and integrated multiparametric methods.
How do 2D PISA and 3D VCA compare with the 3D volumetric method for intraoperative quantification of mitral regurgitation?
Observational (n=37)
How do 2D PISA and 3D VCA compare with the 3D volumetric method for intraoperative quantification of mitral regurgitation?
Intraoperative 3D volumetric assessment of mitral regurgitation provides superior quantification compared to 2D PISA and 3D VCA, which tend to overestimate severity.
Caution advised with intraoperative 2D PISA or 3D VCA for MR; leaves open validation of 3D volumetric superiority in prospective studies.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Intraoperative quantification of mitral regurgitation (MR) is sometimes necessary to quantify the severity of incidentally detected MR during cardiac surgeries. We aimed to compare and correlate the regurgitant volume (Rvol) and regurgitant fraction (RF) using 2D proximal isovelocity surface area (PISA) and 3D vena contracta area (VCA) with the 3D volumetric method and the integrated multiparametric approach. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A prospective observational study was conducted on 37 patients undergoing mitral valve surgery for MR. Intraoperative quantification of the severity of MR was done using 2D PISA and 3D VCA methods and was compared with the 3D volumetric method. All three methods were compared with the integrated multiparametric method to obtain cutoff values for identifying severe MR. RESULTS: The correlation coefficients for Rvol with VCA and PISA with the 3D volumetric method were 0.688 and 0.58, respectively. VCA and PISA overestimated the Rvol (VCA = 77.93 ± 27.82 ml, PISA = 76.13 ± 19.25 ml) compared to the 3D volumetric method (66.12 ± 20.30 ml); the RF by the three methods was comparable. Using the receiver operating characteristic-area under curve (AUC) comparing Rvol by these methods with the integrated multiparametric method, the 3D volumetric method performed the best. CONCLUSION: The Rvol VCA and PISA overestimated MR severity compared to the 3D volumetric method with moderate to good correlation. Rvol 3D was superior with a higher AUC when compared with the integrated multiparametric approach. The RF by the three methods was comparable, albeit with a higher threshold in quantifying severity compared to the conventional criteria.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Poduval et al. (2025) conducted an observational in Mitral regurgitation (n=37). 2D PISA and 3D VCA vs. 3D volumetric method was evaluated on Regurgitant volume (Rvol) and regurgitant fraction (RF). Intraoperative 2D PISA and 3D VCA overestimated regurgitant volume (76.13 ml and 77.93 ml, respectively) compared to the 3D volumetric method (66.12 ml) in patients with mitral regurgitation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: