Validation of Semiautomated Quantification of Mitral Valve Regurgitation by Three-Dimensional Color Doppler Transesophageal Echocardiography.

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of mitral regurgitation (MR) volume quantified on three-dimensional (3D) color Doppler transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) using new semiautomated software compared with conventional two-dimensional (2D) proximal isovelocity surface area (PISA) transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and TEE and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR).

METHODS

Fifty-one patients (mean age, 63 ± 16 years; 35 men) prospectively underwent TTE, TEE, and CMR for MR evaluation. Regurgitant volume (RVol) by 3D MR flow quantification was compared with 2D TTE, TEE, and CMR, and the accuracy of evaluation of severe MR by 3D MR flow quantification was compared against guideline criteria by TEE.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine patients had severe MR, 16 had moderate MR, and six had mild MR. Three-dimensional MR flow quantification was feasible in all patients, including prolapse (n = 37), restriction (n = 9), functional MR (n = 5), and eccentric or multiple jects (n = 41). RVol on 3D MR flow quantification correlated well with RVol on 2D PISA TTE (interclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.75, P < .001), quantitatively estimated RVol (ICC = 0.74, P < .001), and 2D PISA TEE (ICC = 0.79, P < .001). Three-dimensional MR flow quantification agreed better with CMR (ICC = 0.86, P < .001) than did RVol on 2D PISA TTE (ICC = 0.66, P < .001) and 2D PISA TEE (ICC = 0.69, P < .001), with narrower limits of agreement on Bland-Altman analysis. Three-dimensional MR flow quantification had high accuracy for diagnosing severe MR using TEE (area under the curve = 0.85, 95% CI 0.74-0.96, P < .001) or CMR (area under the curve = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.89-1.00; P < .001) as the criterion.

CONCLUSIONS

The new software enabled semiautomated 3D MR flow quantification in complex MR with multiple and eccentric jets and showed better agreement with CMR than 2D PISA TTE or TEE, suggesting that this method is more accurate than conventional 2D PISA TTE and TEE.