Aortic root remodeling in patients with aortic stenosis assessed by real-time 3D transesophageal echocardiography

Wu, V.C.; Takeuchi, Masaaki; Kaku, Kyoko; Otani, Kyoko; Haruki, Nobuhiko; Yoshitani, Hidetoshi; Tamura, Masahito; Abe, Haruhiko; Lin, Fang-Yi

doi:10.1093/eurheartj/eht310.p4764

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the LVOT is not circular, but elliptical instead, with major and minor axes in a large percentage of patients. [3][4][5] Therefore, the CSA LVOT with 2D echocardiography may be either under-or overestimated depending on which single diameter (i.e., minor or major or axis 7 ) is used. With calculation of the continuity equation, a difference in SV leads to a difference in calculation of the EOA of the mitral valve.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Zhou

Wei

et al. 2021

J Int Med Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 cm2, 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 cm2), with 95% coherence boundaries of −0.53 and 0.25 cm2. 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.

show abstract