4.4 Article

Reliability of Aortic Stenosis Severity Classified by 3-Dimensional Echocardiography in the Prediction of Cardiovascular Events

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 118, 期 3, 页码 410-417

出版社

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2016.05.016

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The estimation of aortic valve area (AVA) by Doppler echocardiography-derived left ventricular stroke volume (LVSV) remains controversial. We hypothesized that AVA estimated from directly measured LVSV by 3-dimensional echocardiography (3DE) on the continuity equation might be more accurate in-classifying aortic stenosis (AS) severity. We retrospectively enrolled 265 patients with moderate-to-severe AS with preserved ejection fraction. Indexed AVA (LAVA) was calculated using LVSV derived by 2D Doppler (LAVA(Dop)), Simpson's method (iAVA(Simp)), and 3DE (LAVA(3D)). During a median follow-up period of 397 days (interquartile range 197 to 706 days), 135 patients experienced the composite end point (cardiac death 9%, aortic valve replacement 24%, and cardiovascular event 27%). Estimated iAVA(3D) and iAVA(Simp) were significantly smaller than iAVA(Dop) and moderately correlated with peak aortic jet velocity. Upper septal hypertrophy was a major cause of discrepancy between iAVA(Dop) and iAVA(3D) methods. Based on the optimal cut-off point of iAVA for predicting peak aortic jet velocity >4.0 m/s, 141 patients (53%) were classified as severe AS and 124 patients (47%) as moderate AS by iAVA(Dop). Indexed AVA(3D) classified 118 patients (45%) as severe and 147 patients (55%) as moderate AS. Of the 124 patients with moderate-AS by iAVADop, 22 patients (18%) were reclassified as severe AS by iAVA(3D) and showed poor prognosis (hazard ratio 2.7, 95% CI 1.4 to 5.0; p = 0.001). In conclusion, 3DE might be superior in classifying patients with AS compared with Doppler method, particularly in patients with upper septal hypertrophy. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. (Am J Cardiol 2016;118:410-417)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据