Why the study?
Does 3DTEE with pressure recovery correction alter the calculated aortic valve area and severity grading in patients with severe AS compared to 2D echocardiography?
Does 3DTEE with pressure recovery correction alter the calculated aortic valve area and severity grading in patients with severe AS compared to 2D echocardiography?
The use of 3DTEE and correction for pressure recovery significantly increases calculated aortic valve area, leading to the reclassification of nearly a third of patients from severe to moderate aortic stenosis.
May warrant 3DTEE with pressure recovery correction to refine AS grading; leaves open impact on outcomes and management.
AIMS: In patients with aortic stenosis (AS), echocardiographic grading of stenosis severity is important, in particular for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Three-dimensional (3D) echocardiography and correction for pressure recovery (PR) by energy loss index (ELI) may improve aortic valve area (AVA) calculation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients with severe AS evaluated for TAVI were included. Left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) and ascending aorta (AA) cross-sectional area were determined in transthoracic two-dimensional echocardiography (2DTTE), 2D transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), 3DTEE, and multislice computed tomography (MSCT). AVA was calculated by the continuity equation and corrected for PR. ELI was determined as [(AVA × AA)/(AA - AVA)]/body surface area. LVOT area was 2.41 ± 0.17 cm(2) calculated using 2DTTE, 2.82 ± 0.16 cm(2) calculated using 2DTEE, 3.96 ± 0.14 cm(2) planimetered in 3DTEE, and 4.47 ± 0.18 cm(2) planimetered in MSCT (P < 0.001). AA area was 4.62 ± 0.23 cm(2) calculated using 2DTTE, 4.64 ± 0.23 cm(2) calculated using 2DTEE, 5.35 ± 0.25 cm(2) planimetered in 3DTEE, and 6.56 ± 0.31 cm(2) planimetered in MSCT (P < 0.001). Indexed aortic valve area (AVAI) calculated by 2DTTE and 2DTEE was smaller (0.27 ± 0.02 cm(2) /m(2) and 0.32 ± 0.02 cm(2) /m(2) ) compared to 3DTEE (0.45 ± 0.02 cm(2) /m(2) ; P < 0.001). When AVAI determined by 3DTEE was corrected for PR by calculation of ELI, there was a further increase (0.52 ± 0.03 cm(2) /m(2) ; P < 0.001), and 10/36 (27.8%) patients were reclassified to moderate AS. CONCLUSION: Three-dimensional TEE is more accurate than 2DTTE and 2DTEE for determining LVOT and AA dimensions. When AS severity is determined by 3DTEE and corrected for PR using the 3D values, it needs to be reclassified from severe to moderate in almost a third of patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stähli et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: