We have located links that may give you full text access.
Superiority of novel automated assessment of aortic annulus by intraoperative three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography in patients with severe aortic stenosis: Comparison with conventional cross-sectional assessment.
Journal of Cardiology 2018 October
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated that three-dimensional (3D) transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is an alternative to multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) for aortic valve sizing in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, conventional cross-sectional analysis of aortic annulus by 3D TEE has some limitations such as lengthy analytical time. A novel software for automated valve measurement has been developed for 3D TEE. We evaluated the accuracy and analytical time of aortic annular measurements using this novel automated software in the clinical setting.
METHODS: We retrospectively studied 43 patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) who underwent TAVR. All patients underwent intraoperative TEE and MDCT. We measured aortic annular area by automated, semi-automated, and cross-sectional methods using 3D TEE datasets. These measurements were compared to the corresponding MDCT reference values. We also compared the analytical time of the three methods.
RESULTS: Automated and semi-automated analyses required significantly shorter analytical time compared to cross-sectional analysis (automated: 30.1±5.79s, semi-automated: 74.1±15.0s, manual: 81.8±18.5s, p<0.05). Compared to MDCT measurement (393.7±81.0mm2 ), annular areas measured by automated and cross-sectional methods were significantly smaller (automated: 380.6±77.1mm2 , cross-sectional: 374.7±76.8mm2 , p<0.05), while that obtained by semi-automated method was not significantly different (387.7±75.8mm2 ). Annular areas determined by semi-automated and cross-sectional analyses had narrower limits of agreement (LOA) with MDCT measurements, compared to automated analysis (automated: -68.6 to 94.7mm2 , semi-automated: -48.3 to 60.2mm2 , cross-sectional: -40.0 to 77.9mm2 ). Measurements by all three methods using 3D TEE showed high correlation with MDCT measurement (automated: r=0.86, semi-automated: r=0.94, cross-sectional: r=0.93).
CONCLUSIONS: For aortic annular measurements using 3D TEE in AS patients, semi-automated analysis using the novel automated software reduced analytical time while maintaining similar accuracy compared to the conventional cross-sectional analysis. This automated software may have acceptable feasibility in the clinical setting.
METHODS: We retrospectively studied 43 patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) who underwent TAVR. All patients underwent intraoperative TEE and MDCT. We measured aortic annular area by automated, semi-automated, and cross-sectional methods using 3D TEE datasets. These measurements were compared to the corresponding MDCT reference values. We also compared the analytical time of the three methods.
RESULTS: Automated and semi-automated analyses required significantly shorter analytical time compared to cross-sectional analysis (automated: 30.1±5.79s, semi-automated: 74.1±15.0s, manual: 81.8±18.5s, p<0.05). Compared to MDCT measurement (393.7±81.0mm2 ), annular areas measured by automated and cross-sectional methods were significantly smaller (automated: 380.6±77.1mm2 , cross-sectional: 374.7±76.8mm2 , p<0.05), while that obtained by semi-automated method was not significantly different (387.7±75.8mm2 ). Annular areas determined by semi-automated and cross-sectional analyses had narrower limits of agreement (LOA) with MDCT measurements, compared to automated analysis (automated: -68.6 to 94.7mm2 , semi-automated: -48.3 to 60.2mm2 , cross-sectional: -40.0 to 77.9mm2 ). Measurements by all three methods using 3D TEE showed high correlation with MDCT measurement (automated: r=0.86, semi-automated: r=0.94, cross-sectional: r=0.93).
CONCLUSIONS: For aortic annular measurements using 3D TEE in AS patients, semi-automated analysis using the novel automated software reduced analytical time while maintaining similar accuracy compared to the conventional cross-sectional analysis. This automated software may have acceptable feasibility in the clinical setting.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Executive Summary: State-of-the-Art Review: Unintended Consequences: Risk of Opportunistic Infections Associated with Long-term Glucocorticoid Therapies in Adults.Clinical Infectious Diseases 2024 April 11
Autoimmune Hemolytic Anemias: Classifications, Pathophysiology, Diagnoses and Management.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 13
Clinical practice guidelines on the management of status epilepticus in adults: A systematic review.Epilepsia 2024 April 13
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app