Use of two- and three-dimensional echocardiography for assessment of the left ventricular outflow tract and aortic orifice areas in dogs

• Published in: Journal of veterinary cardiology Vol. 54; pp. 63 - 77
• Main Authors: Lakhdhir, S., O'Sullivan, M.L., Côté, E., Allen, J.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Netherlands Elsevier B.V 01-08-2024
• Subjects: Continuity equation; Planimetry; Subaortic stenosis; Valve area; Subaortic stenosis; Continuity equation; Planimetry; Valve area
• ISSN: 1760-2734; 1875-0834; 1875-0834
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jvc.2024.06.001

In clinical practice, dogs are screened for subaortic stenosis (SAS) using two-dimensional (2DE) and Doppler echocardiography. There is no accepted antemortem diagnostic criterion to distinguish between mild SAS and unaffected, therefore additional means of evaluating the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) and aorta may be desirable. This study sought to determine and compare LVOT and aortic orifice areas using 2DE and three-dimensional echocardiography (3DE) in apparently healthy dogs of various breeds and somatotypes.
Sixty-nine healthy, privately-owned dogs. The LVOT and aortic orifice areas were determined using 2DE aortic valve (AV) diameter-derived area; the continuity equation (CE); and 3DE planimetry of the LVOT, AV, sinus of Valsalva, and sinotubular junction. Orifice areas were indexed to body surface area (BSA).
Obtaining 3DE images and performing planimetry were feasible in all dogs. The mean indexed area measured using the 2DE AV diameter (2.85 cm2/m2) was significantly lower than that derived from 3DE AV planimetry (3.85 cm2/m2; mean difference, 1.00 cm2/m2; P<0.001). There was poor agreement between the effective area calculated using the CE and the anatomic areas calculated using 2DE AV diameter and 3DE planimetry. The area calculated using the CE was less than all other calculations of area. Interobserver and intraobserver repeatability and reproducibility for 3DE planimetry were excellent.
Methods for determining aortic orifice areas in dogs are not interchangeable, and this must be taken into account if these methods are investigated in the evaluation of dogs with SAS in the future.