Reproducibility of a novel echocardiographic 3D automated software for the assessment of mitral valve anatomy. Issue 1 (December 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Aquila, Iolanda; González, Ariana; Fernández-Golfín, Covadonga; Rincón, Luis; Casas, Eduardo; García, Ana; Hinojar, Rocio; Jiménez-Nacher, José; Zamorano, José
• Is Part Of: Cardiovascular ultrasound. Volume 14:Issue 1(2016)
• Page Start: 1
• Page End: 8
• Publication Date: 2015-12
• Subjects: Mitral valve -- 3D echocardiography -- Automatic software; Echocardiography -- Periodicals; Intravascular ultrasonography -- Periodicals; Cardiovascular system -- Diseases -- Periodicals; 616.1207543
• DOI: 10.1186/s12947-016-0061-8
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1476-7120

Abstract

Abstract Background 3D transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is superior to 2D TEE in quantitative anatomic evaluation of the mitral valve (MV) but it shows limitations regarding automatic quantification. Here, we tested the inter-/intra-observer reproducibility of a novel full-automated software in the evaluation of MV anatomy compared to manual 3D assessment. Methods Thirty-six out of 61 screened patients referred to our Cardiac Imaging Unit for TEE were retrospectively included. 3D TEE analysis was performed both manually and with the automated software by two independent operators. Mitral annular area, intercommissural distance, anterior leaflet length and posterior leaflet length were assessed. Results A significant correlation between both methods was found for all variables: intercommissural diameter (r = 0.84, p < 0.01), mitral annular area (r = 0.94, p > 0, 01), anterior leaflet length (r = 0.83, p < 0.01) and posterior leaflet length (r = 0.67, p < 0.01). Interobserver variability assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient was superior for the automatic software: intercommisural distance 0.997 vs. 0.76; mitral annular area 0.957 vs. 0.858; anterior leaflet length 0.963 vs. 0.734 and posterior leaflet length 0.936 vs. 0.838. Intraobserver variability was good for both methods with a better level of agreement with the automatic software. Conclusions The novel 3D automated software is reproducible in MV anatomy assessment. The incorporation of this new tool in clinical MV assessment may improve patient selection and outcomes for MV interventions as well as patient diagnosis and prognosis stratification. Yet, high-quality 3D images are indispensable.