论文部分内容阅读
Two-dimensional(2-D) planimetry is limited by the technical demands, time, and observer variability required to locate the minimal orifice area, limiting the confident clinical reporting of mitral valve area(MVA). In 27 consecutive patients, MVA was determined independently by 2 observers using the conventional 2-D method and a new 3-D-guided method. Using a matrix-array probe, the valve was visualized in a long-axis view and a cursor steered to intersect the leaflet tips and provide a perpendicular short-axis plane viewed side-by-side. Two-dimensional and 3-D-guided methods allowed planimetry in 24 patients. Consistent with better orifice localization, 3-D guidance eliminated the overestimation of internal orifice diameters in the planimetered short-axis view relative to the limiting diameter defined by the long-axis view(for 3-D guidance, 0.73± 0.20 vs 0.73± 0.21 cm, p=0.98, vs 0.90± 0.27 cm in the 2-D short-axis view, p< 0.01). Accordingly, mean values for the smallest orifice area by 3-D guidance were less than by 2-D imaging(1.4± 0.5 vs 1.5± 0.5 cm2, p< 0.01), changing the clinical severity classification in 11 of 24 patients(46% ). The 2-D method also overestimated MVA relative to 3-D guidance compared with Doppler pressure halftime and(n=6) Gorlin areas. Phantom studies verified no differences in resolution for the 2 acquisition modes. Three-dimensional guidance reduced intraobserver variability from 9.8% to 3.8% (SEE 0.14 to 0.06 cm2, p< 0.01) and interobserver variability from 10.6% to 6.1% (SEE 0.15 to 0.09 cm2, p< 0.02). In conclusion, matrix-array technology provides a feasible and highly reproducible direct 3-D-guided method for measuring the limiting mitral orifice area.
Two-dimensional (2-D) planimetry is limited by the technical demands, time, and observer variability required to locate the minimal orifice area, limiting the confident clinical reporting of mitral valve area (MVA). independently by 2 observers using the conventional 2-D method and a new 3-D-guided method. Using a matrix-array probe, the valve was visualized in a long-axis view and a cursor steered to intersect the leaflet tips and provide a Consistent with better orifice localization, 3-D guidance eliminated the overestimation of internal orifice diameters in the planimetered short- axis view relative to the limiting diameter defined by the long-axis view (for 3-D guidance, 0.73 ± 0.20 vs. 0.73 ± 0.21 cm, p = 0.98, vs 0.90 ± 0.27 cm in the 2-D short- <0.01)., Mean values for the smallest orifice ar The 2-D method also was less than by 2-D imaging (1.4 ± 0.5 vs 1.5 ± 0.5 cm2, p <0.01), changing the clinical severity classification in 11 of 24 patients (46%). Pharaom studies verified no differences in resolution for the 2 acquisition modes. Three-dimensional guidance reduced intraobserver variability from 9.8% to 3.8% (SEE 0.14 to 0.06 cm2, p <0.01) and interobserver variability from 10.6% to 6.1% (SEE 0.15 to 0.09 cm2, p <0.02). In conclusion, matrix-array technology provides a feasible and highly reproducible direct 3-D-guided method for measuring the limiting mitral orifice area.