Volumetric 3D TEE accurately assessed anatomical aortic-valve area regardless of morphology, correlating significantly with the continuity equation in bicuspid AS (r=0.83, P<0.001) unlike 2D TEE.
Observational (n=126)
Does 3D TEE provide more accurate assessment of anatomical aortic valve area compared to 2D TEE in patients with bicuspid and tricuspid aortic stenosis?
3D TEE provides accurate assessment of anatomical aortic valve area regardless of valve morphology, overcoming the limitations of 2D TEE in bicuspid aortic stenosis.
Effect estimate: r = 0.83
p-value: p=< 0.001
AIMS: Accurate assessment of disease severity is critical for appropriate treatment of patients with aortic stenosis (AS). This study investigated the influence of aortic-valve morphology on the determination of anatomical aortic-valve area (AVA) in patients with AS. METHODS AND RESULTS: This prospective study included 126 patients with AS who underwent transoesophageal echocardiography (TEE). Aortic-valve area was measured using (i) planimetric two-dimensional (2D) TEE, (ii) volumetric three-dimensional (3D) TEE, and (iii) the continuity equation (CE) obtained with transthoracic echocardiography. Of these, 20 patients also underwent contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography (MDCT). Aortic-valve area was measured from multiplanar reconstruction of the MDCT images. Of the 126 patients, 20 (15.9%) were diagnosed with bicuspid AS and 106 were diagnosed with tricuspid AS. There was an excellent correlation between AVAADCT and AVA3DTEE (r = 0.83, P < 0.001) and a somewhat lower correlation between AVAADCT and AVA2DTEE (r = 0.63, P = 0.006). In the tricuspid AS group, both AVA2DTEE and AVA3DTEE significantly correlated with AVACE (r = 0.63, mean difference 0.13 ± 0.24 cm(2), and r = 0.83, mean difference 0.03 ± 0.12 cm(2), respectively, both P < 0.001). In contrast, in the bicuspid AS group, AVA3DTEE significantly correlated with AVACE (r = 0.83, mean difference 0.10 ± 0.18 cm(2), P < 0.001), whereas AVA2DTEE did not (r = 0.42, mean difference 0.48 ± 0.32 cm(2), P = 0.066). CONCLUSION: Aortic-valve morphology influenced the assessment of anatomical AVA in patients with AS, and 3D TEE is useful for assessing anatomical AVA regardless of aortic-valve morphology.
Machida et al. (Mon,) conducted a observational in aortic stenosis (n=126). Volumetric three-dimensional transoesophageal echocardiography (3D TEE) vs. Planimetric two-dimensional transoesophageal echocardiography (2D TEE) was evaluated on Correlation of anatomical aortic-valve area with the continuity equation in bicuspid aortic stenosis (r = 0.83, p=< 0.001). Volumetric 3D TEE accurately assessed anatomical aortic-valve area regardless of morphology, correlating significantly with the continuity equation in bicuspid AS (r=0.83, P<0.001) unlike 2D TEE.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: