Echocardiographic Assessment of the Tricuspid Annulus: The Effects of the Third Dimension and Measurement Methodology.
Cardiac Surgical Procedures
/ methods
Decision Making
Echocardiography, Three-Dimensional
/ methods
Echocardiography, Transesophageal
/ methods
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Prospective Studies
Reproducibility of Results
Tricuspid Valve
/ diagnostic imaging
Tricuspid Valve Insufficiency
/ diagnosis
3D echocardiography
Transesophageal echocardiography
Transthoracic echocardiography
Tricuspid valve
Valvular heart disease
Journal
Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography : official publication of the American Society of Echocardiography
ISSN: 1097-6795
Titre abrégé: J Am Soc Echocardiogr
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8801388
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2019
02 2019
Historique:
received:
30
05
2018
pubmed:
22
11
2018
medline:
23
6
2020
entrez:
22
11
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Evaluation of the tricuspid annulus is crucial for the decision making at the time of left heart surgery. Current recommendations for tricuspid valve repair are based on two-dimensional (2D) transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), despite the known underestimation compared with three-dimensional (3D) echocardiography. However, little is known about the differences in 3D tricuspid annular (TA) sizing using TTE versus transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). The aims of this study were to (1) compare 2D and 3D TA measurements performed with both TTE and TEE and (2) compare two 3D methods for TA measurements: multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) and dedicated software (DS) designed to take into account TA nonplanarity. Seventy patients underwent 2D and 3D TTE and TEE. Two-dimensional images were used to measure TA diameter from apical four-chamber, right ventricular-focused (TTE), and midesophageal four-chamber (TEE) views. Three-dimensional full-volume data sets were analyzed using both MPR and DS, to obtain major and minor axes, perimeter, and area. Intertechnique agreement was assessed using Bland-Altman analysis. Measurements on 2D TTE and TEE, which were view dependent, underestimated TA major dimensions in all views compared with 3D values, irrespective of the 3D method. MPR and DS measurements were significantly different, with DS resulting in larger values for all parameters, irrespective of approach. No differences were found between 3D TTE and 3D TEE for both MPR and DS. Our findings highlight the need for methodology that respects the 3D geometry of the tricuspid annulus, including its nonplanarity, which cannot be accurately assessed from 2D images and is not equally taken into account by different 3D measurement methodologies. Accordingly, a 3D cutoff value for TA enlargement needs to be established and is likely to be larger than the guideline-recommended 2D-based 40-mm cutoff. Importantly, noninvasive 3D TTE can be used instead of 3D TEE because TA measurements are not different.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Evaluation of the tricuspid annulus is crucial for the decision making at the time of left heart surgery. Current recommendations for tricuspid valve repair are based on two-dimensional (2D) transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), despite the known underestimation compared with three-dimensional (3D) echocardiography. However, little is known about the differences in 3D tricuspid annular (TA) sizing using TTE versus transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). The aims of this study were to (1) compare 2D and 3D TA measurements performed with both TTE and TEE and (2) compare two 3D methods for TA measurements: multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) and dedicated software (DS) designed to take into account TA nonplanarity.
METHODS
Seventy patients underwent 2D and 3D TTE and TEE. Two-dimensional images were used to measure TA diameter from apical four-chamber, right ventricular-focused (TTE), and midesophageal four-chamber (TEE) views. Three-dimensional full-volume data sets were analyzed using both MPR and DS, to obtain major and minor axes, perimeter, and area. Intertechnique agreement was assessed using Bland-Altman analysis.
RESULTS
Measurements on 2D TTE and TEE, which were view dependent, underestimated TA major dimensions in all views compared with 3D values, irrespective of the 3D method. MPR and DS measurements were significantly different, with DS resulting in larger values for all parameters, irrespective of approach. No differences were found between 3D TTE and 3D TEE for both MPR and DS.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings highlight the need for methodology that respects the 3D geometry of the tricuspid annulus, including its nonplanarity, which cannot be accurately assessed from 2D images and is not equally taken into account by different 3D measurement methodologies. Accordingly, a 3D cutoff value for TA enlargement needs to be established and is likely to be larger than the guideline-recommended 2D-based 40-mm cutoff. Importantly, noninvasive 3D TTE can be used instead of 3D TEE because TA measurements are not different.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30459122
pii: S0894-7317(18)30506-6
doi: 10.1016/j.echo.2018.09.008
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
238-247Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2018 American Society of Echocardiography. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.