Aortic Valve Planimetry in Aortic Stenosis Quantification: Reliability of Three-Dimensional-Multiplane Reconstruction and Comparison With Established Methods.

Blaser, Isaac; Papadis, Athanasios; Kassar, Mohammad; Nozica, Nikolas; Gräni, Christoph; Seiler, Christian; De Marchi, Stefano; Buffle, Eric (2024). Aortic Valve Planimetry in Aortic Stenosis Quantification: Reliability of Three-Dimensional-Multiplane Reconstruction and Comparison With Established Methods. The American journal of cardiology, 211, pp. 287-290. Elsevier 10.1016/j.amjcard.2023.11.018

Text Aortic_Valve_Planimetry_in_Aortic_Stenosis_Quantification__Reliability_of_Three-Dimensional-Multiplane_Reconstruction_and_Comparison_With_Established_Methods.pdf - Published Version Restricted to registered users only Available under License Publisher holds Copyright. Download (433kB)

We aim to evaluate the reliability and consistency of measuring the aortic valve area (AVA) using 3-dimensional (3D) transesophageal echocardiography and compare it with invasive and noninvasive methods using a continuity equation (CE). Measurements were taken from 119 patients with different severity of aortic stenosis and with normal aortic valve who underwent elective transesophageal echocardiography encompassing the whole spectrum of aortic opening. Three methods were compared to determine AVA. First, the effective AVA was calculated with the standard CE, where the left ventricular outflow tract area was calculated from its 2-dimensional diameter (AVA-CEstd). Second, a modified CE method (AVA-CEmod) was used, in which the left ventricular outflow tract area was measured using 3D-multiplane reconstruction. Third, the geometric AVA was directly measured using 3D-multiplane reconstruction planimetry (AVA-3D). Interobserver and intraobserver variability were analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). The values were measured by two blinded readers for interobserver variability and by one observer on the same dataset. AVA-3D was significantly larger than AVA-CEmod and AVA-CEstd (1.87 ± 1.00 cm2 vs 1.81 ± 0.92 cm2 p = 0.03 and 1.87 ± 1.00 cm2 vs 1.71 ± 0.85 cm2 p <0.001). However, in the subset of patients with AVA-3D <1.5 cm2, there was no significant difference between AVA-3D and AVA-CEmod (1.06 ± 0.24 vs 1.08 ± 0.26 cm2, paired t test: t = 0.77, degree of freedom = 58, p = 0.44). The ICC between the measurements of AVA-3D and AVA-CEmod (ICC 0.979), and AVA-3D and AVA- CEstd (ICC 0.940), were excellent. AVA-3D delivers very similar results as compared with more established echocardiographic parameters. The difference between effective and geometric AVA did not appear to be clinically relevant in patients with a higher degree of stenosis.

Interest & Impact

Downloads

1 since deposited on 28 Dec 2023
1 in the past 12 months

Citations

5 Citations in Web of Science ®
6 Citations in Scopus

Search

in Google Scholar™

Services

Actions (login required)

Edit item

Actions (login required)

Edit item