Skip to main content
Download PDF

Impact of 3D echocardiography on grading of mitral stenosis and prediction of clinical events

Echo Research & Practice volume 5, pages 105–111 (2018)Cite this article

Abstract

Background: The mitral valve orifice area (MVOA) is difficult to assess accurately by 2D echocardiography because of geometric assumptions; therefore, 3D planimetry may offer advantages. We studied the differences in MVOA measurements between the most frequently used methods, to determine if 3D planimetry would result in the re-grading of severity in any cases, and whether it was a more accurate predictor of clinical outcomes.

Methods: This was a head-to-head comparison of the three most commonly used techniques to grade mitral stenosis (MS) by orifice area and to assess their impact on clinical outcomes. 2D measurements (pressure half-time (PHT), planimetry) and 3D planimetry were performed retrospectively on patients with at least mild MS. The clinical primary endpoint was defined as a composite of MV balloon valvotomy, mitral valve repair or replacement (MVR) and/or acute heart failure (HF) admissions.

Results: Forty-one consecutive patients were included; the majority were female (35; 85.4%), average age 55 (17) years. Mean and peak MV gradients were 9.4 (4) mmHg and 19 (6) mmHg, respectively. 2D and 3D measures of MVOA differed significantly; mean 2D planimetry MVOA was 1.28 (0.40) cm2, mean 3D planimetry MVOA 1.15 (0.29) cm2 (P = 0.003). Mean PHT MVOA was 1.43 (0.44) cm2 (P = 0.046 and P < 0.001 in comparison to 2D and 3D planimetry methods, respectively). 3D planimetry reclassified 7 (17%) patients from mild-tomoderate MS, and 1 (2.4%) from moderate to severe. Overall, differences between the two methods were significant (X2, P < 0.001). Only cases graded as severe by 3D predicted the primary outcome measure compared with mild or moderate cases (odds ratio 5.7).

Conclusion: 3D planimetry in MS returns significantly smaller measurements, which in some cases results in the reclassification of severity. Routine use of 3D may significantly influence the management of MS, with a degree of prediction of clinical outcomes.

References

  1. Baumgartner H, Falk V, Bax JJ, De Bonis M, Hamm C, Holm PJ, Iung B, Lancellotti P, Lansac E, Rodriguez Muñoz D, et al. 2017 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. European Heart Journal 2017 2017 2739–2791. (https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehx391)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Erwin JP, Fleisher LA, Jneid H, Mack MJ, McLeod CJ, O’Gara PT, et al. 2017 AHA/ACC focused update of the 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force on clinical practice guidelines. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2017 2017 252–289. (https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000503)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Binder TM, Rosenhek R, Porenta G, Maurer G & Baumgartner H. Improved assessment of mitral valve stenosis by volumetric real-time three-dimensional echocardiography. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2000 36 1355–1361. (https://doi.org/10.1016/S0735-1097(00)00852-4)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Hatle L, Angelsen B & Tromsdal A. Noninvasive assessment of atrioventricular pressure half-time by Doppler ultrasound. Circulation 1979 60 1096–1104. (https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.60.5.1096)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL & MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. Journal of Chronic Diseases 1987 40 373–383. (https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Quan H, Li B, Couris CM, Fushimi K, Graham P, Hider P, Januel JM & Sundararajan V. Updating and validating the Charlson comorbidity index and score for risk adjustment in hospital discharge abstracts using data from 6 countries. American Journal of Epidemiology 2011 173 676–682. (https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwq433)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Mahmood F, Owais K, Taylor C, Montealegre-Gallegos M, Manning W, Matyal R & Khabbaz KR. Three-dimensional printing of mitral valve using echocardiographic data. JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging 2015 8 227–229. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2014.06.020)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mahmoud Elsayed HM, Hassan M, Nagy M, Amin A, Elguindy A, Wagdy K & Yacoub M. A novel method to measure mitral valve area in patients with rheumatic mitral stenosis using three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography: feasibility and validation. Echocardiography 2018 35 368–374. (https://doi.org/10.1111/echo.13786)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Sampaio F, Ladeiras-Lopes R, Almeida J, Fonseca P, Fontes-Carvalho R, Ribeiro J & Gama V. Three-dimensional proximal flow convergence automatic calculation for determining mitral valve area in rheumatic mitral stenosis. Echocardiography 2017 34 1002–1009. (https://doi.org/10.1111/echo.13558)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. de Agustin JA, Mejia H, Viliani D, Marcos-Alberca P, Gomez de Diego JJ, Nuñez-Gil IJ, Almeria C, Rodrigo JL, Luaces M, Garcia-Fernandez MA, et al. Proximal flow convergence method by three-dimensional color Doppler echocardiography for mitral valve area assessment in rheumatic mitral stenosis. Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography 2014 27 838–845. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.echo.2014.04.023)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Min S-Y, Song J-M, Kim Y-J, Park H-K, Seo M-O, Lee M-S, Kim DH, Kang DH & Song JK. Discrepancy between mitral valve areas measured by two-dimensional planimetry and three-dimensional transoesophageal echocardiography in patients with mitral stenosis. Heart 2013 99 253–258. (https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2012-302742)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Pérez de Isla L, Casanova C, Almería C, Rodrigo JL, Cordeiro P, Mataix L, Aubele AL, Lang R & Zamorano JL. Which method should be the reference method to evaluate the severity of rheumatic mitral stenosis? Gorlin’s method versus 3D-echo. European Journal of Echocardiography 2007 8 470–473. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euje.2006.08.008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Schlosshan D, Aggarwal G, Mathur G, Allan R & Cranney G. Real-time 3D transesophageal echocardiography for the evaluation of rheumatic mitral stenosis. JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging 2011 4 580–588. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2010.12.009)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hatle L, Brubakk A, Tromsdal A & Angelsen B. Noninvasive assessment of pressure drop in mitral stenosis by Doppler ultrasound. British Heart Journal 1978 40 131–140. (https://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.40.2.131)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Thomas JD, Wilkins GT, Choong CY, Abascal VM, Palacios IF, Block PC & Weyman AE. Inaccuracy of mitral pressure half-time immediately after percutaneous mitral valvotomy. Dependence on transmitral gradient and left atrial and ventricular compliance. Circulation 1988 78 980–993. (https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.78.4.980)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Supported in part by a National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre award to Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospital and King’s College London in partnership with King’s College Hospital.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cardiology Department, Kings College Hospital, London, UK

    C. Bleakley MD MRCP, M. Eskandari MD FRACP, O. Aldalati MD MRCP, K. Moschonas MD MRCP, M. Huang, A. Whittaker & M. J. Monaghan PhD FRCP(Hon) FACC FESC

Authors
  1. C. Bleakley MD MRCP
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Eskandari MD FRACP
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. O. Aldalati MD MRCP
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. K. Moschonas MD MRCP
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M. Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. A. Whittaker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. M. J. Monaghan PhD FRCP(Hon) FACC FESC
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. J. Monaghan PhD FRCP(Hon) FACC FESC.

Rights and permissions

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, duplication, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bleakley, C., Eskandari, M., Aldalati, O. et al. Impact of 3D echocardiography on grading of mitral stenosis and prediction of clinical events. Echo Res Pract 5, 105–111 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1530/ERP-18-0031

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1530/ERP-18-0031

Key Words

Echo Research & Practice

ISSN: 2055-0464

Contact us