Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 9, 2025
Lumped-Parameter and Finite Element Modeling of Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction
Published on: February 13, 2021
A pairwise meta-analytic comparison of aortic valve area determined by planimetric versus hemodynamic methods in
Lisa Q Rong1, Irbaz Hameed2, Antonino Di Franco2
1Department of Anesthesiology, Weill Cornell Medicine/New York Presbyterian, New York, NY, USA.
Background:
Aortic valve area (AVA) is commonly determined from 2-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography (2D TTE) by the continuity equation; however, this method relies on geometric assumptions of the left ventricular outflow tract which may not hold true. This study compared mean differences and correlations for AVA by planimetric (2-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography [2D TEE], 3-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography [3D TEE], 3-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography [3D TTE], multi-detector computed tomography [MDCT], and magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) with hemodynamic methods (2D TTE and catheterization) using pairwise meta-analysis.
Method:
Ovid MEDLINE®, Ovid EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library (Wiley) were queried for studies comparing AVA measurements assessed by planimetric and hemodynamic techniques. Pairwise meta-analysis for mean differences (using random effect model) and for correlation coefficients (r) were performed.
Results:
Forty-five studies (3014 patients) were included. Mean differences between planimetric and hemodynamic techniques were 0.12 cm2 (95%CI 0.10-0.15) for AVA (pooled r = 0.84; 95%CI 0.76-0.90); 1.36cm2 (95%CI 1.03-1.69) for left ventricular outflow tract area; and 0.13 cm (95%CI 0.07-0.20) for annular diameter (pooled r = 0.76; 95% CI 0.64-0.94); 0.67 cm2 (95%CI 0.59-0.76) for annular area (pooled r = 0.74; 95%CI 0.55-0.86).
Conclusions:
Planimetric techniques slightly, but significantly, overestimate AVA when compared to hemodynamic techniques.
