Computational Analysis of Virtual Echocardiographic Assessment of Functional Mitral Regurgitation for Validation of Proximal Isovelocity Surface Area Methods
Tongran Qin,Andrés Caballero,Rebecca T Hahn,Raymond McKay,Wei Sun,Rebecca T. Hahn
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.echo.2021.06.011
IF: 7.722
2021-11-01
Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography
Abstract:Patient-specific computer models of MR were created for validation of PISA methodsPISA area is subject to systematic underestimation due to Doppler angle effectRegurgitant flow rate is subject to systematic overestimation due to flow direction angleIntegrated PISA is more robust than peak PISA for regurgitant volume quantificationMitral regurgitation (MR) quantification by proximal isovelocity surface area (PISA) method remains challenging. Using computer models, this study aims to evaluate the accuracy of different PISA methods and quantify their errors.Five functional MR (FMR) computer models of different geometric and tethering abnormalities were created, validated and treated as phantom models, from which the reference values were directly obtained. Virtual 2D and 3D PISA (both peak and integrated values) were performed on these phantom models. By comparing virtual PISA results with reference values, the accuracy of different PISA methods was evaluated, and their sources of errors were quantified.Compared to reference values of regurgitant flow rate, excellent correlations were found for true-PISA (r = 0.99, bias 32.3 ± 35.3 ml/s), 3D-PISA (r = 0.97, bias -24.4 ± 55.5 ml/s), followed by multiplane 2D hemicylindrical (HC)-PISA (r = 0.88, bias -24.1 ± 85.4 ml/s), hemiellipsoidal (HE)-PISA (r = 0.91, bias -55.7 ± 96.6 ml/s). Weaker correlations were found for single plane 2D hemispherical (HS)-PISA (PLAX: r = 0.71, bias -77.6 ± 124.5 ml/s; A2Ch: r = 0.69, bias -52.0 ± 122.0 ml/s; A4Ch: r = 0.82, bias -65.5 ± 107.3 ml/s). For regurgitant volume quantification, integrated PISA was more accurate than peak PISA. The bias of 3D PISA improved from -12.7 ± 7.8 ml (peak PISA) to -2.1 ± 5.3 ml (integrated PISA).For FMR quantification, 2D HS-PISA had significant underestimation, multiplane 2D HE- and HC-PISA showed improve accuracy, while 3D-PISA is the most accurate. PISA method is subject to both systematic underestimation due to Doppler angle effect, and systematic overestimation when regurgitant flow is not perpendicular to PISA contour. Integrated PISA is able to capture the dynamic MR and is therefore more accurate than peak PISA. The sum of regurgitant flow rates is the most feasible way to perform integrated PISA.<span class="display"><span><ol class="links-for-figure"><li><a class="anchor download-link u-font-sans" href="https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S089473172100554X-fx1_lrg.jpg"><span class="anchor-text">Download : <span class="download-link-title">Download high-res image (235KB)</span></span></a></li><li><a class="anchor download-link u-font-sans" href="https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S089473172100554X-fx1.jpg"><span class="anchor-text">Download : <span class="download-link-title">Download full-size image</span></span></a></li></ol></span></span>
cardiac & cardiovascular systems