Key result
Agreement between 2D and 3D speckle-tracking echocardiography for strain and rotational measures was poor with a high average bias, though correlation for GLS in the MS group was excellent (r=0.907).
Why the study?
Agreement and interchangeability between 2D and 3D speckle-tracking echocardiography remain unclear, as 2DSTE is more widely available than 3DSTE.
Does 3D speckle-tracking echocardiography agree with 2D speckle-tracking echocardiography for measuring left ventricular parameters in healthy volunteers and patients with mild mitral stenosis?
Population
31 patients with mild MS and 27 healthy volunteers
Comparison
2DSTE vs 3DSTE
Design
Comparative imaging study
Authors
Loading...
Weak-to-moderate correlations limit 2DSTE–3DSTE interchangeability in mild MS; leaves open modality-specific norms for research and practice.
Cross-Sectional (n=58)
Does 3D speckle-tracking echocardiography agree with 2D speckle-tracking echocardiography for measuring left ventricular parameters in healthy volunteers and patients with mild mitral stenosis?
Effect estimate: r = 0.907 for GLS in MS group
p-value: p=<0.001
2D and 3D speckle-tracking echocardiography show poor agreement for strain and rotational measures, indicating they are not interchangeable in healthy individuals or those with mild mitral stenosis.
Poyraz et al. (2019) conducted a cross-sectional in Mild mitral stenosis (n=58). 3D speckle-tracking echocardiography (3DSTE) vs. 2D speckle-tracking echocardiography (2DSTE) was evaluated on Correlation and agreement between 2DSTE and 3DSTE for volumetric, strain, and rotational parameters (r = 0.907 for GLS in MS group, p=<0.001). Agreement between 2D and 3D speckle-tracking echocardiography for strain and rotational measures was poor with a high average bias, though correlation for GLS in the MS group was excellent (r=0.907).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: