Choosing between velocity-time-integral ratio and peak velocity ratio for calculation of the dimensionless index (or aortic valve area) in serial follow-up of aortic stenosis.

BACKGROUND: It remains unclear which echocardiographic measure is most suitable for serial measurement in real-world aortic stenosis (AS) follow-up. We determine whether the dimensionless index (DI) between aortic valve and left ventricular outflow tract velocities is measured more consistently using velocity-time-integral (VTI) or peak velocities (V(peak)) in real life. METHODS: Serial echocardiograms acquired within 6 months in subjects with AS were analysed with blinding, to compare the variability over time of DI calculated using V(peak), with that of DI calculated using VTI. RESULTS: Paired echocardiograms, acquired on average 72 days apart, were analysed from 70 patients with a range of severities of AS (59% severe). DI, calculated using either V(peak) or VTI, did not significantly change over this short time. Coefficient of variation was significantly better when DI was calculated using V(peak) than VTI (12.6 versus 25.4%, p<0.0001). The variabilities of mean and peak trans-aortic valve 4v(2) and left ventricular outflow tract VTI were no better: 26.9%, 19.1% and 22.1% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Serially-followed variables require minimal noise to maximise detection of genuine change. For AS surveillance, calculating DI--or effective orifice area--from the ratio of V(peak) rather than VTIs would reduce 95% confidence intervals from ± 51% to a still-disappointing ± 25%. Guidelines recommend noisy surveillance measures, causing conscientious echocardiographers to 'peek' at previous values, and impairing clinicians' faith in echocardiographically-observed changes when making clinical decisions. For us in echocardiography to improve our ability to contribute to AS follow-up requires us to first acknowledge and discuss this honestly.

Evidence-based recommendations for PISA measurements in mitral regurgitation: systematic review, clinical and in-vitro study.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for quantifying mitral regurgitation (MR) using "proximal isovelocity surface area" (PISA) instruct operators to measure the PISA radius from valve orifice to Doppler flow convergence "hemisphere". Using clinical data and a physically-constructed MR model we (A) analyse the actually-observed colour Doppler PISA shape and (B) test whether instructions to measure a "hemisphere" are helpful. METHODS AND RESULTS: In part A, the true shape of PISA shells was investigated using three separate approaches. First, a systematic review of published examples consistently showed non-hemispherical, "urchinoid" shapes. Second, our clinical data confirmed that the Doppler-visualized surface is non-hemispherical. Third, in-vitro experiments showed that round orifices never produce a colour Doppler hemisphere. In part B, six observers were instructed to measure hemisphere radius rh and (on a second viewing) urchinoid distance (du) in 11 clinical PISA datasets; 6 established experts also measured PISA distance as the gold standard. rh measurements, generated using the hemisphere instruction significantly underestimated expert values (-28%, p<0.0005), meaning r(h)(2) was underestimated by approximately 2-fold. du measurements, generated using the non-hemisphere instruction were less biased (+7%, p=0.03). Finally, frame-to-frame variability in PISA distance was found to have a coefficient of variation (CV) of 25% in patients and 9% in in-vitro data. Beat-to-beat variability had a CV of 15% in patients. CONCLUSIONS: Doppler-visualized PISA shells are not hemispherical: we should avoid advising observers to measure a hemispherical radius because it encourages underestimation of orifice area by approximately two-fold. If precision is needed (e.g. to detect changes reliably) multi-frame averaging is essential.