Skip Navigation

European Journal of Echocardiography 2007 8(6):470-473; doi:10.1016/j.euje.2006.08.008
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pérez de Isla, L.
Right arrow Articles by Zamorano, J. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Pérez de Isla, L.
Right arrow Articles by Zamorano, J. L.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Copyright © 2007, The European Society of Cardiology

Which method should be the reference method to evaluate the severity of rheumatic mitral stenosis? Gorlin's method versus 3D-echo

Leopoldo Pérez de Islaa, Carlos Casanovaa, Carlos Almeríaa, José Luis Rodrigoa, Pedro Cordeiroa, Luis Mataixa, Ada Lia Aubelea, Roberto Langb and José Luis Zamoranoa,*

aUnidad de Imagen Cardiovascular, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain
bUniversity of Chicago Hospitals, Chicago, USA

Received 20 June 2006; received in revised form 17 August 2006; accepted after revision 22 August 2006.

* Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +34 91 330 32 90. jlzamorano{at}vodafone.es


  Abstract

Introduction: Several studies have shown a wide variability among different methods to determine the valve area in patients with rheumatic mitral stenosis. Our aim was to evaluate if 3D-echo planimetry is more accurate than the Gorlin method to measure the valve area.

Methods: Twenty-six patients with mitral stenosis underwent 2D and 3D-echo echocardiographic examinations and catheterization. Valve area was estimated by different methods. A median value of the mitral valve area, obtained from the measurements of three classical non-invasive methods (2D planimetry, pressure half-time and PISA method), was used as the reference method and it was compared with 3D-echo planimetry and Gorlin's method.

Results: Our results showed that the accuracy of 3D-echo planimetry is superior to the accuracy of the Gorlin method for the assessment of mitral valve area.

Conclusions We should keep in mind the fact that 3D-echo planimetry may be a better reference method than the Gorlin method to assess the severity of rheumatic mitral stenosis.

Keywords: MVA mitral valve area; PISA proximal isovelocity surface area; PHT pressure half-time


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Eur J EchocardiogrHome page
F. A. Flachskampf and L. Klinghammer
Determination of stenotic mitral valve area: new, old, and gold standards
Eur J Echocardiogr, May 1, 2008; 9(3): 321 - 321.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Eur J EchocardiogrHome page
L. P. de Isla
Reply to the letter to the editor by F. A. Flachskampf et al. Determination of stenotic mitral valve area: new, old, and gold standards
Eur J Echocardiogr, May 1, 2008; 9(3): 321 - 322.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.