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

Eur J Echocardiogr. 2007 Dec;8(6):470-3. doi: 10.1016/j.euje.2006.08.008. Epub 2006 Oct 12.

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.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Echocardiography / methods*
  • Echocardiography, Three-Dimensional
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Mitral Valve Stenosis / diagnostic imaging*
  • Mitral Valve Stenosis / etiology
  • Mitral Valve Stenosis / physiopathology
  • Rheumatic Heart Disease / complications
  • Rheumatic Heart Disease / diagnostic imaging*
  • Rheumatic Heart Disease / physiopathology
  • Severity of Illness Index