Why the study?
Does three-dimensional echocardiography improve the evaluation of aortic and mitral valve stenosis compared to two-dimensional echocardiography and catheterization?
Does three-dimensional echocardiography improve the evaluation of aortic and mitral valve stenosis compared to two-dimensional echocardiography and catheterization?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Three-dimensional echocardiography provides accurate spatial recognition and planimetric measurement of aortic and mitral valves, offering advantages over 2D methods in complex cases such as severe calcification.
Dynamic volume rendered three‐dimensional echocardiography allows the spatial recognition of anatomy and function of the aortic and mitral valves with acceptable image quality. The aortic valve can be best visualized in a view from the ascending aorta down to the valve level, thus allowing an overview of the aortic aspect of the valve in a surgeon's perspective in ∼ 80% of patients. Planimetric measurement of the aortic valve area was possible in 88% of patients, and there is no systematic overestimation or underestimation of aortic valve area compared with two‐dimensional echocardiography and catheterization. The entire valvular circumference of the mitral valve can be assessed from both a left atrial and a left ventricular perspective. Advantages of the three‐dimensional transesophageal echocardiography mitral valve area determination compared with transthoracic two‐dimensional planimetry and Doppler‐derived pressure half‐time method are present in patients with severely calcified mitral valves and in those with combined aortic regurgitation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mohr-Kahaly et al. (1999) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: