Valoración De Las Dimensiones De La Comunicación Interauricular: Estudio Comparativo Entre Ecocardiograma Transesofágico Bidimensional, Ecocardiograma Transesofágico Tridimensional Y Tomografía Computarizada De 64 Detectores

Comparar el ecocardiograma transesofágico bidimensional, el ecocardiograma transesofágico tridimensional en tiempo real y la tomografía computarizada en la medición del defecto interauricular en pacientes candidatos a tratamiento percutáneo. Se seleccionaron pacientes remitidos para cierre percutáneo, determinando los diámetros máximo y mínimo mediante las tres técnicas. Se incluyeron 21 pacientes (66% mujeres; edad media: 40,8 ± 21,4 años). Se realizó cierre exitoso en todos ellos. Se observó adecuada correlación entre las tres técnicas (diámetro máximo, bidimensional vs tridimensional: 14,7 ± 9,2 vs 15,3 ± 9,3, CCI = 0,99, p < 0,001; bidimensional vs tomografía: 15,3 ± 9,5 vs 17,1 ± 10,6, CCI = 0,88, p < 0,001; tomografía vs tridimensional: 17,1 ± 10,6 vs 15,8 ± 9,6, CCI = 0,91, p < 0,001. Diámetro mínimo, bidimensional vs tridimensional: 8,3 ± 4,6 vs 8,7 ± 4,7, CCI = 0,99, p < 0,001; bidimensional vs tomografía: 8,8 ± 4,6 vs 12,3 ± 6,2, CCI = 0,67, p = 0,001; tomografía vs tridimensional: 12,3 ± 6,4 vs 9,1 ± 5,0, CCI = 0,74, p < 0,001). Nos encontramos ante pruebas complementarias con una excelente correlación. Estos hallazgos pueden resultar relevantes a la hora de seleccionar el tamaño del dispositivo de cierre. To compare transesophageal echocardiography, real time three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography and 64-slice computed tomography methods to measure atrial septal defect size before transcatheter closure. Patients who were subjected to percutaneous closure were selected. Two-dimensional echocardiography, real time 3D-transesophageal echocardiography and computed tomography were performed. Maximum and minimum diameters were measured. Twenty one patients were included (female 66%, mean age: 40.8 ± 21.4). All patients successfully underwent percutaneous closure. The correlations between the measurements obtained by the three techniques were analysed (maximum diameter, two-dimensional vs 3D-echocardiography: 14.7 ± 9.2 vs 15.3 ± 9.3, ICC = 0.99, P < .001; two-dimensional echocardiography vs tomography: 15.3 ± 9.5 vs 17.1 ± 10.6, ICC = 0.88, P < .001; tomography vs 3D-echocardiography: 17.1 ± 10.6 vs 15.8 ± 9.6, ICC = 0.91, P < .001. Minimum diameter: two-dimensional vs 3D-echocardiography: 8.3 ± 4.6 vs 8.7 ± 4.7, ICC = 0.99, P < .001; two-dimensional echocardiography vs tomography: 8.8 ± 4.6 vs 12.3 ± 6.2, ICC = 0.67, P = .001; tomography vs 3D-echocardiography: 12.3 ± 6.4 vs 9.1 ± 5.0, ICC = 0.74, P < .001). Two-dimensional echocardiography, 3D-echocardiography and tomography are complementary techniques with a good correlation. These findings could be relevant for the selection of the size of the device.