Table 1.
Overview of clinical studies validating 3D vena contracta area measurement against 2D methods and independent methods
| Study | No. of patients | Scan method | Etiology | Comparison method | Correlation/agreement (mean diff. ± SD) | Inter-/intraobserver variability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Khanna et al.(2004) [16] | 44 | TTE | Not reported | Ventriculographic grading | r = 0.88; limits of agreement not reported | r² = 0.99/ r² = 0.97 |
| Iwakura et al. (2006) [28] | 109 | TTE | FMR 63 % | EROA by 2D PISA; EROA by 2D QD |
r = 0.93 with 2D PISA; 0.07 ± 0.1 cm² r = 0.91 with 2D QD; 0.05 ± 0.1 cm² |
8.6 %/9.0 % |
| Kahlert et al. (2008) [18••] | 57 | TTE | FMR 36 % | EROA by 2D and 3D PISA |
r = 0.96 with HE PISA; −0.09 ± 0.14 cm² r = 0.93 with HSPISA; −0.2 ± 0.20 cm² |
0.04 cm²/– |
| Little et al. (2008) [24] | 61 | TTE | FMR 44 % | EROA by 2D QD | r = 0.85; limits of agreement not reported | 0.03/0.05 cm² |
| Yosefy et al. (2009) [26] | 49 | TTE | FMR 58 % | EROA by 2D QD | r² = 0.86; 0.04 ± 0.06 cm² | 0.03/0.02 cm² |
| Marsan et al. (2009) [29] | 64 | TTE | FMR 100 % | RVol by CMR | r = 0.94 (bias: −0.08 ml, limits of agreement 7.6 ml/−7.7 ml) | 0.06/0.04 cm² |
| Shanks et al. (2010) [25] | 30 | TEE | FMR 53 % | RVol by CMR | Not reported; 63.2±41.3 ml (3DE) vs. 65.1±42.7 ml (CMR) | 0.01/0.01 cm2 |
| Zeng et al. (2011) [30] | 83 | TTE | FMR 47 % | Integrated 2DE methods | r = 0.88; limits of agreement not reported | 0.03/0.04 cm² |
| Hyodo et al. (2012) [27] | 60 | TEE | FMR 100 % | EROA from 3D left ventricular volume and thermodilution data | r = 0.90; −0.05 ± 0.06 cm² | 0.06/0.05 cm² |
HS hemispheric, HE hemielliptic, FMR functional mitral regurgitation, QD quantitative Doppler, RVol regurgitant volume, CMR cardiac magnetic resonance, EROA effective regurgitant orifice area, 2DE two-dimensional echocardiography, 3DE three-dimensional echocardiography, PISA proximal isovelocity surface area