Why the study?
Does a fully automatic segmentation method accurately measure aortic annulus diameter in 3D TEE compared to manual measurement in patients with aortic disease?
Does a fully automatic segmentation method accurately measure aortic annulus diameter in 3D TEE compared to manual measurement in patients with aortic disease?
A fully automatic segmentation method for 3D TEE can robustly measure the aortic annulus diameter with accuracy comparable to manual measurements by cardiologists, potentially aiding in TAVI device selection.
Agreement comparable to interobserver variability supports automated aortic annulus measurement feasibility; leaves open clinical adoption pending prospective validation.
BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation involves percutaneously implanting a biomechanical aortic valve to treat severe aortic stenosis. In order to select a proper device, precise sizing of the aortic valve annulus must be completed. METHODS: In this paper, we describe a fully automatic segmentation method to measure the aortic annulus diameter in patients with aortic calcification, operating on 3-dimensional transesophageal echocardiographic images. The method is based on state estimation of a subdivision surface representation of the left ventricular outflow tract and aortic root. The state estimation is solved by an extended Kalman filter driven by edge detections normal to the subdivision surface. RESULTS: The method was validated on echocardiographic recordings of 16 patients. Comparison against two manual measurements showed agreements (mean ±SD) of -0.3 ± 1.6 and -0.2 ± 2.3 mm for perimeter-derived diameters, compared to an interobserver agreement of -0.1 ± 2.1 mm. CONCLUSIONS: With this study, we demonstrated the feasibility of an efficient and fully automatic measurement of the aortic annulus in patients with aortic disease. The algorithm robustly measured the aortic annulus diameter, providing measurements indistinguishable from those done by cardiologists.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bersvendsen et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: