Department of Cardiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009 Nov;2(11):1245-52. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2009.07.006.
The aim of this study was to evaluate feasibility and accuracy of real-time 3-dimensional (3D) echocardiography for quantification of mitral regurgitation (MR), in a head-to-head comparison with velocity-encoded cardiac magnetic resonance (VE-CMR).
Accurate grading of MR severity is crucial for appropriate patient management but remains challenging. VE-CMR with 3D three-directional acquisition has been recently proposed as the reference method.
A total of 64 patients with functional MR were included. A VE-CMR acquisition was applied to quantify mitral regurgitant volume (Rvol). Color Doppler 3D echocardiography was applied for direct measurement, in "en face" view, of mitral effective regurgitant orifice area (EROA); Rvol was subsequently calculated as EROA multiplied by the velocity-time integral of the regurgitant jet on the continuous-wave Doppler. To assess the relative potential error of the conventional approach, color Doppler 2-dimensional (2D) echocardiography was performed: vena contracta width was measured in the 4-chamber view and EROA calculated as circular (EROA-4CH); EROA was also calculated as elliptical (EROA-elliptical), measuring vena contracta also in the 2-chamber view. From these 2D measurements of EROA, the Rvols were also calculated.
The EROA measured by 3D echocardiography was significantly higher than EROA-4CH (p < 0.001) and EROA-elliptical (p < 0.001), with a significant bias between these measurements (0.10 cm(2) and 0.06 cm(2), respectively). Rvol measured by 3D echocardiography showed excellent correlation with Rvol measured by CMR (r = 0.94), without a significant difference between these techniques (mean difference = -0.08 ml/beat). Conversely, 2D echocardiographic approach from the 4-chamber view significantly underestimated Rvol (p = 0.006) as compared with CMR (mean difference = 2.9 ml/beat). The 2D elliptical approach demonstrated a better agreement with CMR (mean difference = -1.6 ml/beat, p = 0.04).
Quantification of EROA and Rvol of functional MR with 3D echocardiography is feasible and accurate as compared with VE-CMR; the currently recommended 2D echocardiographic approach significantly underestimates both EROA and Rvol.
本研究旨在评估实时三维(3D)超声心动图定量二尖瓣反流(MR)的可行性和准确性,并与速度编码心脏磁共振(VE-CMR)进行头对头比较。
准确分级 MR 严重程度对于适当的患者管理至关重要,但仍具有挑战性。最近提出了三维三向采集的 VE-CMR 作为参考方法。
共纳入 64 例功能性 MR 患者。VE-CMR 采集用于定量二尖瓣反流容积(Rvol)。彩色多普勒 3D 超声心动图用于在“正面”视图中直接测量二尖瓣有效反流口面积(EROA);随后,通过连续波多普勒测量反流射流的速度时间积分,将 Rvol 计算为 EROA 乘以该值。为了评估常规方法的相对潜在误差,进行了彩色多普勒二维(2D)超声心动图检查:在四腔心视图中测量收缩期瓣口宽度,并计算圆形 EROA(EROA-4CH);还通过在二腔心视图中测量收缩期瓣口宽度,计算出椭圆形 EROA(EROA-elliptical)。根据这些二维 EROA 测量值,还计算了 Rvol。
3D 超声心动图测量的 EROA 明显高于 EROA-4CH(p < 0.001)和 EROA-elliptical(p < 0.001),这两种测量值之间存在显著偏差(分别为 0.10 cm2 和 0.06 cm2)。3D 超声心动图测量的 Rvol 与 CMR 测量的 Rvol 具有极好的相关性(r = 0.94),两种技术之间无显著差异(平均差值 = -0.08 ml/beat)。相反,与 CMR 相比,四腔心视图的 2D 超声心动图方法显著低估了 Rvol(p = 0.006)(平均差值 = 2.9 ml/beat)。2D 椭圆形方法与 CMR 具有更好的一致性(平均差值 = -1.6 ml/beat,p = 0.04)。
与 VE-CMR 相比,使用 3D 超声心动图对功能性 MR 的 EROA 和 Rvol 进行定量是可行且准确的;目前推荐的 2D 超声心动图方法明显低估了 EROA 和 Rvol。