Three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography measurement of mitral valve area in patients with rheumatic mitral stenosis: multiplanar reconstruction or 3D direct planimetry?

3D direct planimetry is increasingly used in clinical practice as a rapid way to measure the mitral valve area (MVA) in patients with rheumatic mitral stenosis (MS) who underwent three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography (3D-TEE). However, data on its accuracy and reliability are scarce. This study aimed to compare the MVA measurements obtained by 3D direct planimetry to the conventional technique multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) in MS patients using 3D-TEE. We retrospectively included 49 patients with rheumatic MS undergoing clinically-indicated 3D-TEE in the study. We determined the 3D direct planimetry measurements of MVA from the left atria aspect (MVA) and the left ventricle aspect (MVA), and compared those with the MPR method (MVA). We also assessed the major and minor diameters of the mitral valve orifice using MPR and 3D direct planimetry. We found an excellent agreement between the MVA measurements obtained by the MPR method and 3D direct planimetry (MVA and MVA) [intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) = 0.951 and 0.950, respectively]. However, the MVA measurements were significantly larger than the MVA and MVA (p < 0.001; mean difference: 0.12 ± 0.15 cm and 0.11 ± 0.16 cm, respectively).The inter-observer and intra-observer variability ICC were 0.875 and 0.856 for MVA, 0.982 and 0.984 for MVA, and 0.988 and 0.986 for MVA, respectively. The major diameter measured by MPR (1.90 ± 0.42 cm) was significantly larger than that obtained by 3D direct planimetry (1.72 ± 0.35 cm for the LA aspect, p < 0.001; 1.73 ± 0.36 cm for the LV aspect, p < 0.001). The minor diameter measured by MPR (0.96 ± 0.25 cm) did not differ from that derived by 3D direct planimetry (0.94 ± 0.25 cm for the LA aspect, p = 0.07; 0.95 ± 0.27 cm for the LV aspect, p = 0.32). 3D direct planimetry provides highly reproducible measurements of MVA and yields data in excellent agreement with those obtained by the MPR method. The discrepancy between the two techniques may be due to differences in major diameter measurements of the mitral valve orifice.