Person:

Jeganathan, Jelliffe

Three-dimensional (3D) printing is a rapidly evolving technology with several potential applications in the diagnosis and management of cardiac disease. Recently, 3D printing (i.e. rapid prototyping) derived from 3D transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) has become possible. Due to the multiple steps involved and the specific equipment required for each step, it might be difficult to start implementing echocardiography-derived 3D printing in a clinical setting. In this review, we provide an overview of this process, including its logistics and organization of tools and materials, 3D TEE image acquisition strategies, data export, format conversion, segmentation, and printing. Generation of patient-specific models of cardiac anatomy from echocardiographic data is a feasible, practical application of 3D printing technology.

Background: Echocardiographic analysis of mitral valve (MV) has become essential for diagnosis and management of patients with MV disease. Currently, the various software used for MV analysis require manual input and are prone to interobserver variability in the measurements. Aim: The aim of this study is to determine the interobserver variability in an automated software that uses artificial intelligence for MV analysis. Settings and Design: Retrospective analysis of intraoperative three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography data acquired from four patients with normal MV undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery in a tertiary hospital. Materials and Methods: Echocardiographic data were analyzed using the eSie Valve Software (Siemens Healthcare, Mountain View, CA, USA). Three examiners analyzed three end-systolic (ES) frames from each of the four patients. A total of 36 ES frames were analyzed and included in the study. Statistical Analysis: A multiple mixed-effects ANOVA model was constructed to determine if the examiner, the patient, and the loop had a significant effect on the average value of each parameter. A Bonferroni correction was used to correct for multiple comparisons, and P = 0.0083 was considered to be significant. Results: Examiners did not have an effect on any of the six parameters tested. Patient and loop had an effect on the average parameter value for each of the six parameters as expected (P < 0.0083 for both). Conclusion: We were able to conclude that using automated analysis, it is possible to obtain results with good reproducibility, which only requires minimal user intervention.