Resolving Apparent Inconsistencies Between Area, Flow, and Gradient Measurements in Patients With Aortic Valve Stenosis and Preserved Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction

Resolving Apparent Inconsistencies Between Area, Flow, and Gradient Measurements in Patients With... Inconsistencies between area (aortic valve area [AVA])-flow-gradient are common during the echocardiographic assessment of aortic stenosis (AS). This study was conducted to investigate the importance of these inconsistencies and the impact of 3 methods to resolve these inconsistencies. The study population consisted of 327 patients (age: 76.3 ± 8.6 years, 49.5% males) with severe AS (SAS) (AVA ≤ 1 cm2) and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (≥50%). Inconsistent findings between AVA, flow, and mean gradient (MG) were observed in 78 (23.9%) patients with low flow and a high MG, 52 (15.9%) patients with normal flow and a low MG, and 37 (11.3%) patients with a low flow and a low MG. Using stroke volume index by catheterization for AVA recalculation showed the greatest effect to resolve inconsistencies in the low flow and a high MG group (85%). Decreasing the AVA cut-off values for SAS to ≤0.8 cm2 resulted in a shift from SAS to moderate AS in 36 patients (69%) in the normal flow and a low MG. Indexing AVA to body surface area had only a minor impact on reclassification. In conclusion, in patients with SAS and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, the majority of area-flow-gradient inconsistencies at echocardiography can be resolved by correcting errors in stroke volume index measurements by alternative techniques and by redefining the cut-off value for SAS to ≤0.8 cm2. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png The American Journal of Cardiology Elsevier

Resolving Apparent Inconsistencies Between Area, Flow, and Gradient Measurements in Patients With Aortic Valve Stenosis and Preserved Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction

Loading next page...
 
/lp/elsevier/resolving-apparent-inconsistencies-between-area-flow-and-gradient-qSWjmNezcZ
Publisher
Elsevier
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc.
ISSN
0002-9149
D.O.I.
10.1016/j.amjcard.2017.11.047
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Inconsistencies between area (aortic valve area [AVA])-flow-gradient are common during the echocardiographic assessment of aortic stenosis (AS). This study was conducted to investigate the importance of these inconsistencies and the impact of 3 methods to resolve these inconsistencies. The study population consisted of 327 patients (age: 76.3 ± 8.6 years, 49.5% males) with severe AS (SAS) (AVA ≤ 1 cm2) and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (≥50%). Inconsistent findings between AVA, flow, and mean gradient (MG) were observed in 78 (23.9%) patients with low flow and a high MG, 52 (15.9%) patients with normal flow and a low MG, and 37 (11.3%) patients with a low flow and a low MG. Using stroke volume index by catheterization for AVA recalculation showed the greatest effect to resolve inconsistencies in the low flow and a high MG group (85%). Decreasing the AVA cut-off values for SAS to ≤0.8 cm2 resulted in a shift from SAS to moderate AS in 36 patients (69%) in the normal flow and a low MG. Indexing AVA to body surface area had only a minor impact on reclassification. In conclusion, in patients with SAS and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, the majority of area-flow-gradient inconsistencies at echocardiography can be resolved by correcting errors in stroke volume index measurements by alternative techniques and by redefining the cut-off value for SAS to ≤0.8 cm2.

Journal

The American Journal of CardiologyElsevier

Published: Mar 15, 2018

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off