Comparative assessment of aortic valve stenosis using two-dimensional, three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography, computed tomography and cardiac catheterization

Marat Asanovich Aripov, A. S. Kali, Nursultan Tanaliyev, Abdurashid A. Mussayev, Г. С. Рашбаева, Tairkhan Dautov

2021

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)

DOI 10.15829/1560-4071-2021-4809

Data confidence 70 medium

How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

Aim. To compare effectiveness of ultrasound, radiological and invasive methods for assessing aortic valve (AV) stenosis. Material and methods. This study included 33 patients with AV stenosis. The mean age of the patients was 71,8±6,8 years. All patients underwent standard and three-dimensional echocardiography, computed tomography, and cardiac catheterization. Results. According to two-dimensional echocardiography, the AV area averaged 0,58±0,21 mm2, according to cardiac catheterization — 0,61±0,17 mm2, according to three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography — 1,13±0,42 mm2, and according to multislice computed tomography 0,88±0,48 mm2. The difference between the values was significant (p<0,05). Conclusion. For routine diagnosis of AV stenosis, two-dimensional echocardiography is the optimal research method. With indications for radical treatment methods, three-dimensional echocardiography or multislice computed tomography should be performed.