4.5 Article

Proximal Isovelocity Surface Area by Single-Beat Three-Dimensional Color Doppler Echocardiography Applied for Tricuspid Regurgitation Quantification

期刊

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.echo.2013.06.006

关键词

Proximal isovelocity surface area; Three-dimensional echocardiography; Tricuspid regurgitation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The two-dimensional (2D) proximal isovelocity surface area (PISA) method has known technical limitations, mainly the geometric assumptions of PISA shape required to calculate effective regurgitant orifice area (EROA). Recently developed single-beat real-time three-dimensional (3D) color Doppler imaging allows the direct measurement of PISA without geometric assumptions and has already been validated for mitral regurgitation assessment. The aim of this study was to apply this novel method in patients with chronic tricuspid regurgitation (TR). Methods: Ninety patients with chronic TR were enrolled. EROA and regurgitant volume (Rvol) were assessed using transthoracic 2D and 3D PISA methods. Quantitative Doppler and 3D transthoracic planimetry of EROA were used as reference methods. Results: Both EROA and Rvol assessed using the 3D PISA method had better correlations with the reference methods than using conventional 2D PISA, particularly in the assessment of eccentric jets. On the basis of 3D planimetry-derived EROA, 35 patients had severe TR (EROA $ 0.4 cm 2). Among these 35 patients, 25.7% (n = 9) were underestimated as having nonsevere TR (EROA# 0.4 cm 2) using the 2D PISA method. In contrast, the 3D PISA method had 94.3% agreement (33 of 35) with 3D planimetry in classifying severe TR. Good intraobserver and interobserver agreement for 3D PISA measurements was observed, with intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.92 and 0.88 respectively. Conclusions: TR quantification using PISA by single-beat real-time 3D color Doppler echocardiography is feasible in the clinical setting and more accurate than the conventional 2D PISA method.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据