...
首页> 外文期刊>Chemical geology >Quantification of mitral valve regurgitation by 2D and 3D echocardiography compared with cardiac magnetic resonance a systematic review and meta-analysis
【24h】

Quantification of mitral valve regurgitation by 2D and 3D echocardiography compared with cardiac magnetic resonance a systematic review and meta-analysis

机译:2D和3D超声心动图的二尖瓣反流定量与心脏磁共振相比,系统评价和荟萃分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

By means of systematic literature review and meta-analysis, we compared results of studies examining different echocardiographic methods assessing severity of mitral valve regurgitation volume (MVR) with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) as standard reference. A systematic search of electronic databases revealed twenty studies eligible for meta-analysis. Results of 2D- and 3D-trans-thoracic (TTE) and trans-esophageal echocardiographic (TEE) proximal isovelocity surface area (PISA) and volumetric methods were compared with CMR. Mean differences (ml) with 95% limits of agreement (LoA) derived from Bland-Altman tests and correlations coefficients [(R) 95% confidence interval (CI)] were pooled together. Overall 1187 patients [mean age = 59 +/- 13 years and 678(57%) males] with primary or secondary mild to severe MVR were included. Comparing all echocardiographic methods with CMR showed an overestimation and moderate agreement with difference and 95% LoA of 8.05(- 3.40, 19.49) ml, R = 0.73(95% CI 0.71-0.76) p < 0.001. 3D-PISA followed by 3D-volumetric methods showed the better agreement with an underestimation of - 3.20(- 12.33, 5.92) ml, R = 0.84(95% CI 0.78-0.89) p < 0.001 and overestimation of 3.73(- 9.17, 16.61) ml, R = 0.90(95% CI 0.87, 0.94) p < 0.001, respectively. 2D-volumetric method showed the poorest agreement with difference and 95% LoA of 23.56(- 4.19, 51.31) ml, R = 0.64(95% CI 0.54-0.73) p < 0.001. In patients (n = 280) with severe MVR, 2D technique incorrectly estimated regurgitation volume severity in 106 (38%) compared to 4(14%) patients using 3D technique. Among echocardiographic methods 3D-PISA agreed best with CMR as reference, making 3D-PISA the most reliable method to quantify MVR. CMR can be considered in severe MVR where uncertainties arise and a decision-making prior valve surgery is required. Further powerful studies are needed to assess the accuracy of different echocardiographic methods.
机译:通过系统文献综述和荟萃分析,我们比较了研究不同超声心动图的研究结果评估二尖瓣流动体积(MVR)的严重程度,作为心脏磁共振成像(CMR)作为标准参考。对电子数据库的系统搜索揭示了有资格进行Meta分析的20项研究。将2D-和3D-跨胸(TTE)和反式食管超声心动图(TEE)近端异腔表面积(PISA)和体积分泌方法的结果与CMR进行了比较。汇集在一起​​,汇集了来自Bland-Altman测试的95%的协议限制(LOA)的平均差异(ML),汇集了系数[(r)95%置信区间(CI)]。总共1187名患者[平均年龄= 59 +/- 13岁,其中含有初级或二级轻度至严重MVR的678(57%)]。将所有超声心动图方法与CMR进行比较显示差异和中等协议,差异和95%LOA为8.05( - 3.40,19.49)mL,R = 0.73(95%CI 0.71-0.76)P <0.001。 3D-PISA之后是3D体积的方法显示出更好的一致性,无低估 - 3.20( - 12.33,5.92)ml,r = 0.84(95%CI 0.78-0.89)P <0.001和3.73的高估( - 9.17,1611 )ML,R = 0.90(95%CI 0.87,0.94)P <0.001。 2D - 体积法显示出最糟糕的差异和95%LOA的23.56( - 4.19,51.31)mL,r = 0.64(95%CI 0.54-0.73)P <0.001。在患者(n = 280)中,具有严重的MVR,2D技术在106(38%)中估计的再脉冲体积严重程度与使用3D技术的4例(14%)患者相比。在超声心动图方法中,3D-PISA与CMR相同,作为参考,使3D-PISA定量MVR的最可靠方法。 CMR可在严重的MVR中考虑,其中出现不确定性并需要决策前瓣膜手术。需要进一步强大的研究来评估不同超声心动图方法的准确性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号