Display options
Cite
Dell'Oro S, Verderio M, Incerti M, et al. 2D versus 3D real time ultrasound with live xPlane imaging to visualize aortic and ductal arches: comparison between methods. PeerJ. 2018;6:e4561doi: 10.7717/peerj.4561.
Dell'Oro, S., Verderio, M., Incerti, M., Mastrolia, S. A., Cozzolino, S., & Vergani, P. (2018). 2D versus 3D real time ultrasound with live xPlane imaging to visualize aortic and ductal arches: comparison between methods. PeerJ, 6e4561. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4561
Dell'Oro, Stefania, et al. "2D versus 3D real time ultrasound with live xPlane imaging to visualize aortic and ductal arches: comparison between methods." PeerJ vol. 6 (2018): e4561. doi: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4561
Dell'Oro S, Verderio M, Incerti M, Mastrolia SA, Cozzolino S, Vergani P. 2D versus 3D real time ultrasound with live xPlane imaging to visualize aortic and ductal arches: comparison between methods. PeerJ. 2018 Apr 06;6:e4561. doi: 10.7717/peerj.4561. eCollection 2018. PMID: 29637020; PMCID: PMC5890721.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

PeerJ. 2018 Apr 06;6:e4561. doi: 10.7717/peerj.4561. eCollection 2018.

2D versus 3D real time ultrasound with live xPlane imaging to visualize aortic and ductal arches: comparison between methods.

PeerJ

Stefania Dell'Oro, Maria Verderio, Maddalena Incerti, Salvatore Andrea Mastrolia, Sabrina Cozzolino, Patrizia Vergani

Affiliations

  1. Department of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Fondazione MBBM, San Gerardo Hospital, University of Milano-Bicocca, Monza, Italy.

PMID: 29637020 PMCID: PMC5890721 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.4561

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of congenital heart defects is challenging, especially for what concerns conotruncal anomalies. Indeed, although the screening techniques of fetal cardiac anomalies have greatly improved, the detection rate of conotruncal anomalies still remains low due to the fact that they are associated with a normal four-chamber view. Therefore, the study aimed to compare real-time three-dimensional echocardiography with live xPlane imaging with two-dimensional (2D) traditional imaging in visualizing ductal and aortic arches during routine echocardiography of the second trimester of gestation.

METHODS: This was an observational prospective study including 114 women with uncomplicated, singleton pregnancies. All sonographic studies were performed by two different operators, of them 60 by a first level operator, while 54 by a second level operator. A subanalysis was run in order to evaluate the feasibility and the time needed for the two procedures according to fetal spine position and operator's experience.

RESULTS: The measurements with 2D ultrasound were performed in all 114 echocardiographies, while live xPlane imaging was feasible in the 78% of the cases, and this was mainly due to fetal position. The time lapse needed to visualize aortic and ductal arches was significantly lower when using 2D ultrasound compared to live xPlane imaging (29.56 ± 28.5 s vs. 42.5 ± 38.1 s,

DISCUSSION: To find a reproducible and standardized method to detect fetal heart defects may bring a great benefit for both patients and operators. In this scenario live xPlane imaging is a novel method to visualize ductal and aortic arches. We found that the position of the fetal spine may affect the feasibility of the method since, when the fetal back is anterior or transverse, the visualization of the correct view of three-vessels and trachea in order to set the reference line properly becomes more challenging. In addition, the fetal spine position influences the duration of the ultrasound examination. Regarding operator's skills and experience, in our study a first level operator was able to perform the complete 2D and xPlane examination in a lower number of cases compared to second level operators. In addition, the time required for the complete examination was higher for first level operators. This means that this technique is based on an adequate operators' expertise.

Keywords: Congenital heart disease; Conotruncal anomalies; Matrix probe; Prenatal diagnosis; Real-time three-dimensional echocardiography; Second trimester screening

Conflict of interest statement

Dr. Salvatore Andrea Mastrolia is an Academic Editor for PeerJ.

References

  1. Am J Perinatol. 2006 May;23 (4):241-5 - PubMed
  2. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Dec;189(6):1792-802 - PubMed
  3. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Oct;20(4):340-5 - PubMed
  4. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Mar;39(3):316-21 - PubMed
  5. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Oct;22(4):380-7 - PubMed
  6. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser. 1998;875:i-46; back cover - PubMed
  7. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Nov;34(5):534-7 - PubMed
  8. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009 Sep;146(1):55-60 - PubMed
  9. Heart. 2002 Jan;87(1):67-9 - PubMed
  10. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Oct;22(4):358-67 - PubMed
  11. Prenat Diagn. 2013 May;33(5):462-6 - PubMed
  12. Echocardiography. 2003 Oct;20(7):623-35 - PubMed
  13. Rev Bras Cir Cardiovasc. 2013 Jul-Sep;28(3):V-VII - PubMed
  14. Prenat Diagn. 2005 May;25(5):370-5 - PubMed
  15. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Mar;37(3):302-9 - PubMed
  16. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Mar;27(3):336-48 - PubMed
  17. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Mar;41(3):348-59 - PubMed
  18. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Jul;28(1):8-14 - PubMed
  19. J Ultrasound Med. 2007 Sep;26(9):1181-8; quiz 1189-90 - PubMed
  20. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012 Apr;25(4):324-8 - PubMed
  21. Pediatr Cardiol. 2004 May-Jun;25(3):223-33 - PubMed
  22. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999 May;33(6):1696-701 - PubMed
  23. J Ultrasound Med. 2007 Apr;26(4):437-43; quiz 444 - PubMed
  24. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1996 Oct;8(4):241-6 - PubMed
  25. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Jan;27(1):107-13 - PubMed
  26. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2013 Mar;26(4):373-7 - PubMed

Publication Types