ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2025
Vena contracta area measurement by three-dimensional echocardiography for assessing mitral regurgitation severity using a novel, fast, and reliable method.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic Value of 3D Transesophageal Vena Contracta Area versus 2D Echocardiographic Assessment of Secondary Mitral Regurgitation.Echocardiography (Mount Kisco, N.Y.) · 2026Article
- Comparison of circular and elliptical geometric models with optimal two-dimensional imaging view for Doppler quantification of mitral regurgitant volume in older patients.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluating AI-Generated Podcasts Versus Traditional Reading for Learning From Medical Articles: Protocol for a Mixed-Design Study Among Resident Physicians.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEchocardiography is the standard tool for the evaluation of mitral regurgitation (MR). Although Two-dimensional echocardiography is the most recommended tool, it has some limitations. Three-dimensional echocardiography (3DE) is suggested to overcome these limitations, however, it is more time-consuming. Introducing a simplified and accurate 3-D method could be helpful in this regard.
methodsPatients diagnosed with significant MR who were referred to Shahid Madani heart center, Tabriz, Iran for evaluation of MR severity were entered in this study. Patients with prior MR surgery, poor image quality, and without self-consent for participation in the study were excluded. Two-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and 3D transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) were performed in all patients. MR severity was compared between these two methods and between direct planimetry (DP) of the vena contracta area (VCA) and 3D directed multiplanar reconstruction (MPR).
resultsA total of 53 patients were studied. Thirty-six (69.7%) of the patients were female. The mean age of patients was 66.21 ± 11.91 years. 3DVCA using DP was significantly correlated with the 2D method in terms of MR severity (p = 0.006). There was a significant correlation between the results of 3DE DP and 2DE magnetic resonance voiding cystography (MRVC) diameter (r = 0.503 and p = 0.0001). A significant correlation was also found between the result of DP and MPR-derived VCA using 3D (r = 0.97 and p = 0.0001).
conclusionTEE is an invaluable method to decide the severity and mechanism of patients with MR, especially if TTE does not give adequate information. The method proposed in this study for evaluation of MR severity and mechanism using 3D TEE could be a helpful option, especially in the above-mentioned conditions. In this study, 3D direct planimetry had an acceptable correlation with 2DE MRVC and also with 3D MPR-derived VCA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.