Why the study?
Does transesophageal echocardiography color Doppler mapping accurately assess aortic regurgitation severity compared to contrast aortography in clinically stable patients?
Does transesophageal echocardiography color Doppler mapping accurately assess aortic regurgitation severity compared to contrast aortography in clinically stable patients?
TEE color Doppler mapping, particularly the ratio of jet area to left ventricular diastolic area, provides a highly sensitive and specific assessment of aortic regurgitation severity that correlates well with angiography.
Transthoracic echocardiographic studies have shown that color Doppler mapping of the aortic regurgitation (AR) jet correlated well with the severity of regurgitation as assessed by contrast aortography. The present study was performed to assess whether these parameters could be similarly applied to measurements determined by transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). In order to determine and validate criteria for the assessment of AR severity, 39 clinically stable patients with a TEE color Doppler study and contrast aortography within a 2-week period were identified. The ratio of the jet area (JA) to left ventricular diastolic area (LVDA) had the best correlation to AR severity as determined by contrast aortography (r = 0.89). Jet length, JA, the ratio of jet width to the width of the left ventricular outflow tract and jet width had r values of 0.88, 0.88, 0.83, and 0.84, respectively. The best sensitivity and specificity for the assessment of AR by TEE were obtained as follows: JA/LVDA ratio of 0%-7% predicts 0-1 + AR; 8%-20% 2-3 + AR, and greater than 20% 4 + AR. Of the three patients miscategorized, none was misgraded by more than one angiographic grade of AR. Jets that measure more than 6 cm in length or have an area of greater than 10 cm 2 have a 100% sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing 4 + AR. In the present study the ratio of JA to LVDA area correlates best with AR severity as determined by angiography.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Meyerowitz et al. (1993) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: