Cargando…

Comparison of the effective orifice area of prosthetic mitral valves using two-dimensional versus three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the continuity equation-based effective orifice area (EOA) of prosthetic mitral valves between two-dimensional (2D) and 3D transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). METHODS: Thirty-four patients without major aortic valve abnormalities underwent mitral valve replacement...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhou, Lei, Wei, Hai-yan, Ge, Ya-li, Ding, Zheng-nian, Shi, Hong-wei
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7975571/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33729857
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0300060521997621
_version_ 1783666959041167360
author Zhou, Lei
Wei, Hai-yan
Ge, Ya-li
Ding, Zheng-nian
Shi, Hong-wei
author_facet Zhou, Lei
Wei, Hai-yan
Ge, Ya-li
Ding, Zheng-nian
Shi, Hong-wei
author_sort Zhou, Lei
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: This study compared the continuity equation-based effective orifice area (EOA) of prosthetic mitral valves between two-dimensional (2D) and 3D transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). METHODS: Thirty-four patients without major aortic valve abnormalities underwent mitral valve replacement surgery. The EOAs of prosthetic mitral valves were calculated using the continuity equation with 2D and 3D TEE. For 18/34 patients using a biological valve prosthesis, the EOA of the prosthesis was obtained from commercial records. RESULTS: The EOA of prosthetic mitral valves significantly varied between the 2D and 3D methods (2.22 ± 0.71 vs 2.35 ± 0.70 cm(2), n = 34). The area of the diameter of the left ventricular outflow tract as determined by the 3D method was significantly higher than that by the 2D method (mean difference: −0.14 ± 0.20 cm(2)), with 95% coherence boundaries of −0.53 and 0.25 cm(2). The regression equation for the EOA by 3D and 2D TEE was y = 0.27 + 0.94x, with a good correlation. CONCLUSIONS: The EOA of prosthetic mitral valves is underestimated using the 2D TEE method compared with the 3D TEE method. The 3D-TEE method has the advantage of higher precision over the 2D TEE method, and it may be helpful for better assessment of prosthetic mitral valves intraoperatively.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7975571
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79755712021-03-31 Comparison of the effective orifice area of prosthetic mitral valves using two-dimensional versus three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography Zhou, Lei Wei, Hai-yan Ge, Ya-li Ding, Zheng-nian Shi, Hong-wei J Int Med Res Retrospective Clinical Research Report OBJECTIVE: This study compared the continuity equation-based effective orifice area (EOA) of prosthetic mitral valves between two-dimensional (2D) and 3D transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). METHODS: Thirty-four patients without major aortic valve abnormalities underwent mitral valve replacement surgery. The EOAs of prosthetic mitral valves were calculated using the continuity equation with 2D and 3D TEE. For 18/34 patients using a biological valve prosthesis, the EOA of the prosthesis was obtained from commercial records. RESULTS: The EOA of prosthetic mitral valves significantly varied between the 2D and 3D methods (2.22 ± 0.71 vs 2.35 ± 0.70 cm(2), n = 34). The area of the diameter of the left ventricular outflow tract as determined by the 3D method was significantly higher than that by the 2D method (mean difference: −0.14 ± 0.20 cm(2)), with 95% coherence boundaries of −0.53 and 0.25 cm(2). The regression equation for the EOA by 3D and 2D TEE was y = 0.27 + 0.94x, with a good correlation. CONCLUSIONS: The EOA of prosthetic mitral valves is underestimated using the 2D TEE method compared with the 3D TEE method. The 3D-TEE method has the advantage of higher precision over the 2D TEE method, and it may be helpful for better assessment of prosthetic mitral valves intraoperatively. SAGE Publications 2021-03-17 /pmc/articles/PMC7975571/ /pubmed/33729857 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0300060521997621 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Retrospective Clinical Research Report
Zhou, Lei
Wei, Hai-yan
Ge, Ya-li
Ding, Zheng-nian
Shi, Hong-wei
Comparison of the effective orifice area of prosthetic mitral valves using two-dimensional versus three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography
title Comparison of the effective orifice area of prosthetic mitral valves using two-dimensional versus three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography
title_full Comparison of the effective orifice area of prosthetic mitral valves using two-dimensional versus three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography
title_fullStr Comparison of the effective orifice area of prosthetic mitral valves using two-dimensional versus three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the effective orifice area of prosthetic mitral valves using two-dimensional versus three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography
title_short Comparison of the effective orifice area of prosthetic mitral valves using two-dimensional versus three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography
title_sort comparison of the effective orifice area of prosthetic mitral valves using two-dimensional versus three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography
topic Retrospective Clinical Research Report
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7975571/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33729857
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0300060521997621
work_keys_str_mv AT zhoulei comparisonoftheeffectiveorificeareaofprostheticmitralvalvesusingtwodimensionalversusthreedimensionaltransesophagealechocardiography
AT weihaiyan comparisonoftheeffectiveorificeareaofprostheticmitralvalvesusingtwodimensionalversusthreedimensionaltransesophagealechocardiography
AT geyali comparisonoftheeffectiveorificeareaofprostheticmitralvalvesusingtwodimensionalversusthreedimensionaltransesophagealechocardiography
AT dingzhengnian comparisonoftheeffectiveorificeareaofprostheticmitralvalvesusingtwodimensionalversusthreedimensionaltransesophagealechocardiography
AT shihongwei comparisonoftheeffectiveorificeareaofprostheticmitralvalvesusingtwodimensionalversusthreedimensionaltransesophagealechocardiography