For COVID-19 vaccine updates, please review our information guide and sign up for Connect. Continue your routine care with us by scheduling an in-person appointment or Video Visit.

A pairwise meta-analytic comparison of aortic valve area determined by planimetric versus hemodynamic methods in aortic stenosis.

TitleA pairwise meta-analytic comparison of aortic valve area determined by planimetric versus hemodynamic methods in aortic stenosis.
Publication TypeJournal Article
Year of Publication2020
AuthorsRong LQ, Hameed I, Di Franco A, Rahouma MM, Khan FM, Demetres M, Weinsaft JW, Devereux RB, Gaudino M
JournalInt J Cardiol
Date Published2020 Sep 09
ISSN1874-1754
Abstract

BACKGROUND: Aortic valve area (AVA) is commonly determined from 2-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography (2D TTE) by the continuity equation; however, this method relies on geometric assumptions of the left ventricular outflow tract which may not hold true. This study compared mean differences and correlations for AVA by planimetric (2-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography [2D TEE], 3-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography [3D TEE], 3-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography [3D TTE], multi-detector computed tomography [MDCT], and magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) with hemodynamic methods (2D TTE and catheterization) using pairwise meta-analysis.

METHOD: Ovid MEDLINE®, Ovid EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library (Wiley) were queried for studies comparing AVA measurements assessed by planimetric and hemodynamic techniques. Pairwise meta-analysis for mean differences (using random effect model) and for correlation coefficients (r) were performed.

RESULTS: Forty-five studies (3014 patients) were included. Mean differences between planimetric and hemodynamic techniques were 0.12 cm (95%CI 0.10-0.15) for AVA (pooled r = 0.84; 95%CI 0.76-0.90); 1.36cm (95%CI 1.03-1.69) for left ventricular outflow tract area; and 0.13 cm (95%CI 0.07-0.20) for annular diameter (pooled r = 0.76; 95% CI 0.64-0.94); 0.67 cm (95%CI 0.59-0.76) for annular area (pooled r = 0.74; 95%CI 0.55-0.86).

CONCLUSIONS: Planimetric techniques slightly, but significantly, overestimate AVA when compared to hemodynamic techniques.

DOI10.1016/j.ijcard.2020.09.003
Alternate JournalInt J Cardiol
PubMed ID32916225