Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
Javascript must be enabled to continue!

Planimetry of aortic valve area using multiplane transoesophageal echocardiography is not a reliable method for assessing severity of aortic stenosis.

View through CrossRef
OBJECTIVE: To assess the reliability of aortic valve area planimetry by multiplane transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE) in aortic stenosis. DESIGN: Study of the diagnostic value of aortic valve area planimetry using multiplane TOE, compared with catheterisation and the continuity equation, both being considered as criterion standards. SETTING: University hospital. PATIENTS: 49 consecutive patients (29 male, 20 female, aged 44 to 82 years, average 66.6 (SD 8.5)), referred for haemodynamic evaluation of an aortic stenosis, were enrolled in a prospective study. From this sample, 37 patients were eligible for the final analysis. METHODS: Transthoracic and multiplane transoesophageal echocardiograms were performed within 24 hours before catheterisation. At transthoracic echo, aortic valve area was calculated by the continuity equation. At TOE, the image of the aortic valve opening was obtained with a 30-65 degrees rotation of the transducer. Numerical dynamic images were stored on optical discs for off-line analysis and were reviewed by two blinded observers. Catheterisation was performed in all cases and aortic valve area was calculated by the Gorlin formula. RESULTS: Feasibility of the method was 92% (48/52). The agreement between aortic valve area measured at TOE (mean 0.88 (SD 0.35) cm2) and at catheterisation (0.79 (0.24) cm2) was very poor. The same discrepancies were found between TOE and the continuity equation (0.72 (0.26) cm2). TOE planimetry overestimated aortic valve area determined by the two other methods. Predictive positive and negative values of planimetry to detect aortic valve area < 0.75 cm2 were 62% (10/16) and 43% (9/21) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Planimetry of aortic valve area by TOE is difficult and less accurate than the continuity equation for assessing the severity of aortic stenosis.
Title: Planimetry of aortic valve area using multiplane transoesophageal echocardiography is not a reliable method for assessing severity of aortic stenosis.
Description:
OBJECTIVE: To assess the reliability of aortic valve area planimetry by multiplane transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE) in aortic stenosis.
DESIGN: Study of the diagnostic value of aortic valve area planimetry using multiplane TOE, compared with catheterisation and the continuity equation, both being considered as criterion standards.
SETTING: University hospital.
PATIENTS: 49 consecutive patients (29 male, 20 female, aged 44 to 82 years, average 66.
6 (SD 8.
5)), referred for haemodynamic evaluation of an aortic stenosis, were enrolled in a prospective study.
From this sample, 37 patients were eligible for the final analysis.
METHODS: Transthoracic and multiplane transoesophageal echocardiograms were performed within 24 hours before catheterisation.
At transthoracic echo, aortic valve area was calculated by the continuity equation.
At TOE, the image of the aortic valve opening was obtained with a 30-65 degrees rotation of the transducer.
Numerical dynamic images were stored on optical discs for off-line analysis and were reviewed by two blinded observers.
Catheterisation was performed in all cases and aortic valve area was calculated by the Gorlin formula.
RESULTS: Feasibility of the method was 92% (48/52).
The agreement between aortic valve area measured at TOE (mean 0.
88 (SD 0.
35) cm2) and at catheterisation (0.
79 (0.
24) cm2) was very poor.
The same discrepancies were found between TOE and the continuity equation (0.
72 (0.
26) cm2).
TOE planimetry overestimated aortic valve area determined by the two other methods.
Predictive positive and negative values of planimetry to detect aortic valve area < 0.
75 cm2 were 62% (10/16) and 43% (9/21) respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Planimetry of aortic valve area by TOE is difficult and less accurate than the continuity equation for assessing the severity of aortic stenosis.

Related Results

Assessment of Apical Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Using Transoesophageal Echocardiography
Assessment of Apical Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Using Transoesophageal Echocardiography
Two-dimensional echocardiography is the method of choice for imaging and diagnosis in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. However, ultrasound examination of the left ventric...
Transrectal ultrasonography: why are estimates of prostate volume and dimension so inaccurate?
Transrectal ultrasonography: why are estimates of prostate volume and dimension so inaccurate?
Objectives  To determine why there are variations in the volumes of the prostate obtained by step planimetry and those calculated from the prolate ellipsoid for...
4 
USEFULNESS OF AORTIC VALVE RESISTANCE IN ASSESSMENT OF HEMODYNAMIC SEVERITY IN AORTIC STENOSIS
4 
USEFULNESS OF AORTIC VALVE RESISTANCE IN ASSESSMENT OF HEMODYNAMIC SEVERITY IN AORTIC STENOSIS
Purpose: This prospective study was designed to determine the usefulness of aortic valve resistance for the evaluation of aortic stenosis (AS) and separation of patients with sever...
Abstract 4369914: Successful Transfemoral TAVR in a Patient with Chronic Aortic Dissection and Severe Aortic Insufficiency
Abstract 4369914: Successful Transfemoral TAVR in a Patient with Chronic Aortic Dissection and Severe Aortic Insufficiency
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement is a well-established treatment for high-surgical-risk patients with severe aortic disease, providing a less invasive alternative to traditio...
CFD Based on The Visualisation of Aortic Valve Mechanism in Aortic Valve Stenosis for Risk Prediction at The Peak Velocity
CFD Based on The Visualisation of Aortic Valve Mechanism in Aortic Valve Stenosis for Risk Prediction at The Peak Velocity
Aortic valve disease plays a crucial role in the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD), leading to increased rates of mortality and morbidity. Two diseases, aortic valve regu...

Back to Top