Quantitative assessment of primary mitral regurgitation using left ventricular volumes: a three-dimensional transthoracic echocardiographic pilot study

Abstract

RF can be routinely determined using 3D LV volumes with a high feasibility in patients with primary MR and is reliable for identification of Grade 3+ or Grade 4+ MR. The incorporation of this parameter into the currently recommended multiparametric integrative approach might be helpful to discriminate significant MR.

Apical systolic flow within the left ventricle: A novel and simple Doppler parameter in prediction of mitral regurgitation severity

“…Therefore, novel technics, such as field optimization method (FOM) automatically calculates the location of orifice area on research for eliminating these pitfalls ( 8 ). Recent studies have demonstrated that 3-D PISA method is superior to 2-D PISA method ( 9 , 10 ). This study is the first to consider apical flow dynamics in LV as a perspective to assess MR severity.…”

Quantitative Evaluation of Mitral Regurgitation Secondary to Mitral Valve Prolapse by Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Echocardiography

“…10 3D echocardiography full-volume datasets of the LV were obtained in an adjustable volume divided into six sub-volumes. 1 LV forward stroke volume was calculated as the product of LV outflow tract velocity-time integral (VTI) by LV outflow tract crosssectional area. Mitral 2D-and 3D-MRF (2D Echo MRF and 3D Echo MRF) were obtained off-line (EchoPAC workstation (BT12, General Electric Healthcare)) by measuring the difference in LV total stroke volume (obtained from either 2D or 3D acquisition) and aortic forward stroke volume normalized to LV total stroke volume, by a third investigator, blinded to MR grading of the 2 experts and without access to echocardiography -Doppler data used for the integrative multiparametric approach.…”

Proportionate or disproportionate secondary mitral regurgitation: how to untangle the Gordian knot?

“…40 46 For the RF parameter, each of the components (TSV, FSV or RV) has intrinsic error, because multiple measures are combined into each of these volume components, and the error increases when the volumes are subtracted. 27 In figure 4 and table 1 (Patient 9), we show how echocardiographic volumetric measurement variability 47 of RF may shift a patient from proportionate (RV/ LVEDV=0.14 at RF=50% and EF=30%) towards a disproportionate profile (RV/LVEDV=0.23 and RF=59% and EF=39%), assuming the proposed RV/LVEDV cut-off being 0.20 12 and/or RF >50%. 13 Indeed, apart from biological variability, the SD for the patients in the conceptual framework ('their position in the EROA/LVEDV and RV/LVEDV graphs') when measured with the volumetric method is determined by echocardiographic measurement variability of LVEDV, LVESV (EF), FSV (RF) and TVI, which may be substantial.…”

“…13 Indeed, apart from biological variability, the SD for the patients in the conceptual framework ('their position in the EROA/LVEDV and RV/LVEDV graphs') when measured with the volumetric method is determined by echocardiographic measurement variability of LVEDV, LVESV (EF), FSV (RF) and TVI, which may be substantial. 27 47 Therefore, additional imaging such as 3D echocardiography 47 or CMR may be considered 44…”