Key result
3-dimensional and 2-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography showed good consistency in estimating prosthetic mitral valve effective orifice area, though 2D measurements were significantly lower by about 6% (2.22 vs 2.35 cm2, p<0.001).
Why the study?
The study was conducted to analyze the consistency of effective orifice area of prosthetic mitral valves estimated using 2D versus 3D transesophageal echocardiography.
Does 3D-TEE provide consistent estimates of prosthetic mitral valve effective orifice area compared to 2D-TEE in patients undergoing mitral valve replacement?
Observational (n=34)
Single-blind
No
Does 3D-TEE provide consistent estimates of prosthetic mitral valve effective orifice area compared to 2D-TEE in patients undergoing mitral valve replacement?
Mean Difference: -0.14
Absolute Event Rate: 2.35% vs 2.22%
p-value: p=<0.001
2D and 3D TEE show good consistency for estimating prosthetic mitral valve effective orifice area, though 2D TEE slightly underestimates the area by about 6% compared to 3D TEE due to the elliptical shape of the LVOT.
2D/3D TEE show consistency for prosthetic mitral EOA; leaves open whether small differences warrant routine 3D adoption.
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the consistency of effective orifice area (EOA) of prosthetic mitral valve estimated using 2- dimensional (2D) and 3-dimensional (3D) transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted among 34 patients undergoing mitral valve replacement surgery in Nanjing First Hospital between March and June in 2019. The diameter of the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) measured by 2D-TEE was used to calculate the cross sectional area of LVOT (CSALVOT). In 3D-TEE method, LVOT area was measured directly by planimetry on an enface view. The EOAs of the prosthetic mitral valve were calculated for both methods using the continuity equation. Bland-Altman plot consistency test was used to analyze the consistency between the two sets of EOA results, and linear regression analysis was used to analyze their correlation. OBJECTIVE: , showing a good correlation between the two methods. OBJECTIVE: EOA estimation of the prosthetic mitral valve using 2D and 3D TEE has a good consistency, and the results estimated by the 2D method are slightly lower by about 6% than those by the 3D method.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhou et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Mitral valve replacement (n=34). 3-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography (3D TEE) vs. 2-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography (2D TEE) was evaluated on Effective orifice area (EOA) of the prosthetic mitral valve (MD -0.14 cm2, 95% CI -0.53, 0.25, p=<0.001). 3-dimensional and 2-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography showed good consistency in estimating prosthetic mitral valve effective orifice area, though 2D measurements were significantly lower by about 6% (2.22 vs 2.35 cm2, p<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: