Loading…

Transesophageal echocardiographic assessment of systolic mitral leaflet displacement among patients with mitral valve prolapse

Though qualitative transthoracic echocardiographic criteria for abnormal systolic leaflet motion are widely accepted as diagnostic characteristics of mitral valve prolapse, transesophageal echocardiographic criteria have not been evaluated against such a standard. Because transesophageal imaging pla...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The American heart journal 1998-02, Vol.135 (2), p.197-206
Main Authors: Langholz, David, Mackin, William J., Wallis, Diane E., Jacobs, William R., Scanlon, Patrick J., Louie, Eric K.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Though qualitative transthoracic echocardiographic criteria for abnormal systolic leaflet motion are widely accepted as diagnostic characteristics of mitral valve prolapse, transesophageal echocardiographic criteria have not been evaluated against such a standard. Because transesophageal imaging planes are not identical to transthoracic imaging planes, validation of transesophageal echocardiographic criteria for mitral valve prolapse is needed. Eleven patients with mitral valve prolapse (based on physical findings and transthoracic echocardiographic criteria) and 11 healthy persons underwent prospective transesophageal echocardiography in two orthogonal imaging planes. Measurements of maximal leaflet displacement superior to the annular hinge points and mitral prolapse area subtended by the displaced mitral leaflets and the chord connecting the annular hinge points were performed in triplicate and averaged by a blinded observer. Though maximal systolic leaflet displacement was greater among patients with mitral valve prolapse than healthy subjects for both the transesophageal four-chamber (0.66 ± 0.39 cm versus 0.05 ± 0.11 cm, p < 0.001) and two-chamber views (0.57 ± 0.44 cm versus 0.20 ± 0.25 cm, p
ISSN:0002-8703
1097-6744
DOI:10.1016/S0002-8703(98)70082-1