University Department for Cardiac Surgery, HELIOS Heart Center Leipzig, Strümpellstraße 39, 04289, Leipzig, Germany.
Department of Electrophysiology, HELIOS Leipzig Heart Center, Leipzig, Germany.
Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2021 Jun;37(6):1947-1959. doi: 10.1007/s10554-021-02179-2. Epub 2021 Feb 22.
Three-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography (3D-TTE) provides a semi-automated proximal isovelocity surface area method (3D-PISA) to obtain quantitative parameters. Data assessing regurgitation severity in mitral valve prolapse (MVP) are scarce, so we assessed the 3D-PISA method compared with 2D-PISA and cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) and the role of an eccentricity index. We evaluated the 3D-PISA method for assessing MR in 54 patients with MVP (57 ± 14 years; 42 men; 12 mild/mild-moderate; 12 moderate-severe; and 30 severe MR). Role of an asymmetric (i.e. eccentricity index ≥ 1.25) flow convergence region (FCR) and inter-modality consistency were then assessed. 3D-PISA derived regurgitant volume (RVol) showed a good correlation with 2D-PISA and CMR derived parameters (r = 0.86 and r = 0.81, respectively). The small mean differences with 2D-PISA derived RVol did not reach statistical significance in overall population (5.7 ± 23 ml, 95% CI - 0.6 to 12; p = 0.08) but differed in those with asymmetric 3D-FCR (n = 21; 2D-PISA: 72 ± 36 ml vs. 3D-PISA: 93 ± 47 ml; p = 0.001). RVol mean values were higher using PISA methods (CMR 57 ± 33 ml; 2D-PISA 73 ± 39 ml; and 3D-PISA 79 ± 45 ml) and an overestimation was observed when CMR was used as reference (2D-PISA vs. CMR: mean difference: 15.8 ml [95% CI 10-22, p < 0.001]; and 3D-PISA vs. CMR: 21.5 ml [95% CI 14-29, p < 0.001]). Intra- and inter-observer reliability was excellent (ICC 0.91-0.99), but with numerically lower coefficient of variation for 3D-PISA (8%-10% vs. 2D-PISA: 12%-16%). 3D-PISA method for assessing regurgitation in MVP may enable analogous evaluation compared to standard 2D-PISA, but with overestimation in case of asymmetric FCR or when CMR is used as reference method.
三维经胸超声心动图(3D-TTE)提供了一种半自动的近端等速表面积法(3D-PISA)来获取定量参数。二尖瓣脱垂(MVP)反流严重程度的数据评估较少,因此我们评估了 3D-PISA 方法与 2D-PISA 和心血管磁共振(CMR)的比较,并评估了偏心指数的作用。我们评估了 3D-PISA 方法在 54 例 MVP 患者(57±14 岁;42 名男性;12 例轻度/轻度中度;12 例中度重度;30 例重度 MR)中的应用。然后评估了不对称(即偏心指数≥1.25)的射流汇聚区(FCR)和跨模态一致性的作用。3D-PISA 得出的反流容积(RVol)与 2D-PISA 和 CMR 得出的参数有很好的相关性(r=0.86 和 r=0.81)。在整个人群中,3D-PISA 与 2D-PISA 得出的 RVol 的平均差异较小,没有达到统计学意义(5.7±23ml,95%CI-0.6 至 12;p=0.08),但在不对称 3D-FCR 的患者中有所不同(n=21;2D-PISA:72±36ml 与 3D-PISA:93±47ml;p=0.001)。使用 PISA 方法时,RVol 的平均值更高(CMR 57±33ml;2D-PISA 73±39ml;3D-PISA 79±45ml),当 CMR 用作参考时,会出现高估(2D-PISA 与 CMR:平均差异:15.8ml[95%CI 10-22,p<0.001];3D-PISA 与 CMR:21.5ml[95%CI 14-29,p<0.001])。观察者内和观察者间的可靠性都很好(ICC 0.91-0.99),但 3D-PISA 的变异系数略低(8%-10%比 2D-PISA:12%-16%)。3D-PISA 方法评估 MVP 中的反流可能能够与标准 2D-PISA 进行类似的评估,但在不对称 FCR 的情况下或当 CMR 用作参考方法时会出现高估。