Key result
Combining 3D multiplanar reconstruction with 2D transthoracic echocardiography demonstrated moderately strong to strong agreement with operative findings for identifying prolapsing mitral valve scallops (P<0.001).
Why the study?
Does 3D multiplanar reconstruction combined with 2D TTE improve the identification of prolapsing mitral valve scallops compared to 2D TEE in patients with MVP?
Observational (n=55)
Does 3D multiplanar reconstruction combined with 2D TTE improve the identification of prolapsing mitral valve scallops compared to 2D TEE in patients with MVP?
Combining 3D multiplanar reconstruction with 2D TTE provides strong agreement with operative findings for identifying prolapsing mitral valve scallops, offering a valuable complementary technique in preoperative MVP evaluation.
Supports 3D MPR with 2D TTE as complementary for MVP scallop ID; leaves open prospective validation versus TEE.
BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study were twofold: to assess the diagnostic utility of three-dimensional (3D) multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) in identifying prolapsing mitral valve (MV) scallops, and (2) to compare two-dimensional (2D) transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and 3DMPR to (2D) transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) approaches among patients with mitral valve prolapse (MVP). METHODS: Fifty-five patients with MVP who underwent MV repair or replacement were retrospectively analyzed using 3 types of echocardiographic studies (2DTEE, 2DTTE, 3DMPR). The operative (OR) findings were considered the gold standard. RESULTS: When 3DMPR was combined with 2DTTE, the agreement with the OR findings was moderately strong for the A2 scallop (P < 0.001) and strong for the A3 scallop (P = 0.001), entire anterior leaflet (P < 0.001), P2 scallop (P < 0.001) and the entire posterior leaflet (P < 0.001). In comparison to the OR findings, 2DTEE demonstrated moderately strong agreement for the A2 scallop (P = 0.010) and the entire anterior leaflet (P < 0.001), and strong agreement for the P2 scallop (P < 0.001) and entire posterior leaflet (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Three-dimensional MPR should be added to the armamentarium of complementary echo techniques in the evaluation of MVP. There is increased benefit in combining 3DMPR with 2DTTE findings as part of the preoperative evaluation of patients with MVP.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Akhter et al. (2014) conducted an observational in Mitral valve prolapse (MVP) (n=55). 3D multiplanar reconstruction (3DMPR) combined with 2D transthoracic echocardiography (2DTTE) vs. 2D transesophageal echocardiography (2DTEE) and operative findings was evaluated on Agreement with operative findings in identifying prolapsing mitral valve scallops (p=<0.001). Combining 3D multiplanar reconstruction with 2D transthoracic echocardiography demonstrated moderately strong to strong agreement with operative findings for identifying prolapsing mitral valve scallops (P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: