Why the study?
Does multiplanar review of 3D echocardiography improve the morphological assessment of subaortic stenosis in pediatric patients?
Does multiplanar review of 3D echocardiography improve the morphological assessment of subaortic stenosis in pediatric patients?
Multiplanar review of 3D echocardiography provides detailed morphological insights into subaortic stenosis, revealing associated structural abnormalities that complement standard 2D imaging.
May aid morphological assessment of subaortic stenosis with 3D echo; leaves open whether it improves clinical decision-making in children.
AIMS: Associated left ventricular structures may play a role in progression and recurrence of discrete subaortic stenosis. The availability of a new 3D echocardiography tool, multiplanar review (MPR), allows comprehensive analysis of datasets in infinite planes, and detailed examination of anatomy. We sought to evaluate the role of MPR in defining the morphology of subaortic stenosis. METHODS: Consecutive patients underwent detailed 2 and 3D echocardiographic examination using MPR. RESULTS: Sixteen patients aged 0.7-15.9 years (median 4.57) with diagnosis as follows: isolated subaortic stenosis in nine, additional defects in seven (coarctation of aorta, VSD, mitral, or aortic stenosis). Position and extent of subaortic stenosis was clearly described by multiplanar review in all patients. Additional MPR findings were: abnormalities of mitral valve leaflet or chordal apparatus attachments (14 patients), abnormal ventricular muscle band (11), abnormal increased aorto-mitral separation (two). The aortoseptal angle was significantly decreased in subaortic stenosis, mean 141 +/- 12 degrees , vs. normal subjects, mean 153 +/- 6 degrees , P = 0.02. Surgical findings correlated well with MPR findings. CONCLUSIONS: MPR analysis of 3D datasets is a sensitive and accurate mode for delineation of morphological details of discrete subaortic stenosis, providing additional information to 2D echocardiography.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bharucha et al. (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: