Blog
About

  • Record: found
  • Abstract: found
  • Article: not found

Comparison of proximal isovelocity surface area method with pressure half-time and planimetry in evaluation of mitral stenosis.

Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Confounding Factors (Epidemiology), Echocardiography, Doppler, Color, methods, Female, Humans, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Linear Models, Male, Middle Aged, Mitral Valve Stenosis, Severity of Illness Index, ultrasonography, Predictive Value of Tests

Read this article at

ScienceOpenPubMed
Bookmark
      There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

      Abstract

      This study sought to 1) compare the accuracy of the proximal isovelocity surface area (PISA) and Doppler pressure half-time methods and planimetry for echocardiographic estimation of mitral valve area; 2) evaluate the effect of atrial fibrillation on the accuracy of the PISA method; and 3) assess factors used to correct PISA area estimates for leaflet angulation. Despite recognized limitations of traditional echocardiographic methods for estimating mitral valve area, there has been no systematic comparison with the PISA method in a single cohort. Area estimates were obtained in patients with mitral stenosis by the Gorlin hydraulic formula, PISA and pressure half-time method in 48 patients and by planimetry in 36. Two different factors were used to correct PISA estimates for leaflet angle (theta): 1) plane-angle factor (theta/180 [theta in degrees]); and 2) solid-angle factor [1-cos(theta/2)]. After exclusion of patients with significant mitral regurgitation, the correlation between Gorlin and PISA areas (0.88) was significantly greater (p < 0.04) than that between Gorlin and pressure half-time (0.78) or Gorlin and planimetry (0.72). The correlation between Gorlin and PISA area estimates was lower in atrial fibrillation than sinus rhythm (0.69 vs. 0.93), but the standard error of the estimate was only slightly greater (0.24 vs. 0.19 cm2). The average ratio of the solid- to the plane-angle correction factors was approximately equal to previously reported values of the orifice contraction coefficient for tapering stenosis. 1) The accuracy of PISA area estimates in mitral stenosis is at least comparable to those of planimetry and pressure half-time. 2) Reasonable accuracy of the PISA method is possible in irregular rhythms. 3) A simple leaflet angle correction factor, theta/180 (theta in degrees), yields the physical orifice area because it overestimates the vena contracta area by a factor approximately equal to the contraction coefficient for a tapering stenosis.

      Related collections

      Author and article information

      Journal
      7608451

      Comments

      Comment on this article