Intraoperative Transesophageal Echocardiography Quantification of Mitral Regurgitation by Regurgitation Volume and Fraction Using 2D and 3D Techniques.

IF 1.1 Q3 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-04-16 DOI:10.4103/aca.aca_218_24
Devika Poduval, Reshmi L Jose, Thushara Madathil, P Nagarjuna, Niveditha Kartha, Praveen Varma, Praveen Kumar Neema
{"title":"Intraoperative Transesophageal Echocardiography Quantification of Mitral Regurgitation by Regurgitation Volume and Fraction Using 2D and 3D Techniques.","authors":"Devika Poduval, Reshmi L Jose, Thushara Madathil, P Nagarjuna, Niveditha Kartha, Praveen Varma, Praveen Kumar Neema","doi":"10.4103/aca.aca_218_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Intraoperative quantification of mitral regurgitation (MR) is sometimes necessary to quantify the severity of incidentally detected MR during cardiac surgeries. We aimed to compare and correlate the regurgitant volume (Rvol) and regurgitant fraction (RF) using 2D proximal isovelocity surface area (PISA) and 3D vena contracta area (VCA) with the 3D volumetric method and the integrated multiparametric approach.</p><p><strong>Methods and materials: </strong>A prospective observational study was conducted on 37 patients undergoing mitral valve surgery for MR. Intraoperative quantification of the severity of MR was done using 2D PISA and 3D VCA methods and was compared with the 3D volumetric method. All three methods were compared with the integrated multiparametric method to obtain cutoff values for identifying severe MR.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The correlation coefficients for Rvol with VCA and PISA with the 3D volumetric method were 0.688 and 0.58, respectively. VCA and PISA overestimated the Rvol (VCA = 77.93 ± 27.82 ml, PISA = 76.13 ± 19.25 ml) compared to the 3D volumetric method (66.12 ± 20.30 ml); the RF by the three methods was comparable. Using the receiver operating characteristic-area under curve (AUC) comparing Rvol by these methods with the integrated multiparametric method, the 3D volumetric method performed the best.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The Rvol VCA and PISA overestimated MR severity compared to the 3D volumetric method with moderate to good correlation. Rvol 3D was superior with a higher AUC when compared with the integrated multiparametric approach. The RF by the three methods was comparable, albeit with a higher threshold in quantifying severity compared to the conventional criteria.</p>","PeriodicalId":7997,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia","volume":"28 2","pages":"161-169"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12058061/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/aca.aca_218_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aims: Intraoperative quantification of mitral regurgitation (MR) is sometimes necessary to quantify the severity of incidentally detected MR during cardiac surgeries. We aimed to compare and correlate the regurgitant volume (Rvol) and regurgitant fraction (RF) using 2D proximal isovelocity surface area (PISA) and 3D vena contracta area (VCA) with the 3D volumetric method and the integrated multiparametric approach.

Methods and materials: A prospective observational study was conducted on 37 patients undergoing mitral valve surgery for MR. Intraoperative quantification of the severity of MR was done using 2D PISA and 3D VCA methods and was compared with the 3D volumetric method. All three methods were compared with the integrated multiparametric method to obtain cutoff values for identifying severe MR.

Results: The correlation coefficients for Rvol with VCA and PISA with the 3D volumetric method were 0.688 and 0.58, respectively. VCA and PISA overestimated the Rvol (VCA = 77.93 ± 27.82 ml, PISA = 76.13 ± 19.25 ml) compared to the 3D volumetric method (66.12 ± 20.30 ml); the RF by the three methods was comparable. Using the receiver operating characteristic-area under curve (AUC) comparing Rvol by these methods with the integrated multiparametric method, the 3D volumetric method performed the best.

Conclusion: The Rvol VCA and PISA overestimated MR severity compared to the 3D volumetric method with moderate to good correlation. Rvol 3D was superior with a higher AUC when compared with the integrated multiparametric approach. The RF by the three methods was comparable, albeit with a higher threshold in quantifying severity compared to the conventional criteria.

术中经食管超声心动图应用二维和三维技术定量二尖瓣反流体积和分数。
背景和目的:术中量化二尖瓣反流(MR)有时是必要的,以量化心脏手术中意外检测到的MR的严重程度。我们的目的是比较和关联反流体积(Rvol)和反流分数(RF)使用2D近端等速表面积(PISA)和3D静脉收缩面积(VCA)与三维体积法和综合多参数方法。方法与材料:对37例二尖瓣MR手术患者进行前瞻性观察研究,术中采用2D PISA和3D VCA方法量化MR严重程度,并与3D容积法进行比较。结果:Rvol与VCA的相关系数为0.688,PISA与三维体积法的相关系数为0.58。与三维容积法(66.12±20.30 ml)相比,VCA和PISA高估了Rvol (VCA = 77.93±27.82 ml, PISA = 76.13±19.25 ml);三种方法的RF具有可比性。通过对两种方法的Rvol曲线下工作特征面积(AUC)与综合多参数法进行比较,三维体积法的Rvol效果最好。结论:与3D容积法相比,Rvol VCA和PISA高估了MR严重程度,相关性中等至良好。与综合多参数方法相比,Rvol 3D具有更高的AUC。尽管与传统标准相比,在量化严重性方面具有更高的阈值,但三种方法的RF具有可比性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
147
审稿时长
26 weeks
期刊介绍: Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia (ACA) is the official journal of the Indian Association of Cardiovascular Thoracic Anaesthesiologists. The journal is indexed with PubMed/MEDLINE, Excerpta Medica/EMBASE, IndMed and MedInd. The journal’s full text is online at www.annals.in. With the aim of faster and better dissemination of knowledge, we will be publishing articles ‘Ahead of Print’ immediately on acceptance. In addition, the journal would allow free access (Open Access) to its contents, which is likely to attract more readers and citations to articles published in ACA. Authors do not have to pay for submission, processing or publication of articles in ACA.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信