Key result
Aortic valve area planimetry by 3DTEE showed good reliability compared to TTE calculation (ICC 0.848; 95% CI 0.807-0.879), though it rendered a mild constant underestimation of the area.
Why the study?
Is three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography (3DTEE) feasible and reliable for aortic valve area planimetry compared to transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) in patients with aortic valve stenosis?
Population
307 patients with aortic valve stenosis (AVS)
Comparison
Three-dimensional transesophageal… vs Transthoracic echocardiogram calculation of AVA…
Design
Cross-sectional
Authors
Loading...
3DTEE AVA planimetry shows good reliability with mild underestimation versus TTE; leaves open its role in routine AS grading pending further validation.
Observational (n=307)
Is three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography (3DTEE) feasible and reliable for aortic valve area planimetry compared to transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) in patients with aortic valve stenosis?
Effect estimate: ICC 0.848 (95% CI 0.807-0.879)
3DTEE is a feasible and reliable method for AVA planimetry in aortic stenosis, though it slightly underestimates AVA compared to TTE and its feasibility is reduced by severe valvular calcification.
Saura et al. (2014) conducted an observational in Aortic valve stenosis (n=307). Three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography (3DTEE) planimetry vs. Transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) calculation was evaluated on Reliability of aortic valve area (AVA) measurement (Intraclass correlation coefficient) (ICC 0.848, 95% CI 0.807-0.879). Aortic valve area planimetry by 3DTEE showed good reliability compared to TTE calculation (ICC 0.848; 95% CI 0.807-0.879), though it rendered a mild constant underestimation of the area.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: