Journal of echocardiography · 2011
Quantification of mitral valve apparatus by three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography: in vitro validation study comparing two different analysis systems.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Saito Ken, Okura Hiroyuki, Watanabe Nozomi, Imai Koichiro, Tamada Tomoko, Koyama Terumasa, Hayashida Akihiro, Neishi Yoji, Kawamoto Takahiro, Yoshida Kiyoshi
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Two commercial software systems have become available for quantitation of mitral leaflet and annulus geometry based on three-dimensional (3D) transesophageal echocardiographic (3DTEE) images. The aim of this study is to investigate the accuracy and compatibility of the three-dimensional (3D) measurements by Real View(®) and MVQ(®).
METHODS: 3DTEE images were obtained from phantom models with saddle-shaped annulus of mitral valve prolapse and mitral valve tenting. From reconstructed 3D data, prolapse and tenting volume were calculated by both Real View(®) and MVQ(®) and compared with the actual volume.
RESULTS: The volume of the phantom models with saddle-shaped annulus measured by Real View(®) (tenting r = 0.99, prolapse r = 0.99) and MVQ(®) (tenting r = 0.99, prolapse r = 0.99) showed good agreement with the actual volume. However, significant difference between Real View(®) and MVQ(®) was observed in the result of quantification (tenting 2.27 ± 1.5 ml versus 2.53 ± 1.6 ml, prolapse 2.55 ± 1.7 ml versus 2.31 ± 1.6 ml, both P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Although the 2 commercially available systems allow accurate quantitative measurements of the 3D volume, discrepancy in the quantified value as a result of differences in the estimation of annular level is observed. Therefore, we should take into account the characteristics of each software when interpreting analytical results.
METHODS: 3DTEE images were obtained from phantom models with saddle-shaped annulus of mitral valve prolapse and mitral valve tenting. From reconstructed 3D data, prolapse and tenting volume were calculated by both Real View(®) and MVQ(®) and compared with the actual volume.
RESULTS: The volume of the phantom models with saddle-shaped annulus measured by Real View(®) (tenting r = 0.99, prolapse r = 0.99) and MVQ(®) (tenting r = 0.99, prolapse r = 0.99) showed good agreement with the actual volume. However, significant difference between Real View(®) and MVQ(®) was observed in the result of quantification (tenting 2.27 ± 1.5 ml versus 2.53 ± 1.6 ml, prolapse 2.55 ± 1.7 ml versus 2.31 ± 1.6 ml, both P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Although the 2 commercially available systems allow accurate quantitative measurements of the 3D volume, discrepancy in the quantified value as a result of differences in the estimation of annular level is observed. Therefore, we should take into account the characteristics of each software when interpreting analytical results.