4.5 Article

Low systemic arterial compliance is associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in aortic valve stenosis

期刊

HEART
卷 105, 期 19, 页码 1507-1514

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2018-314386

关键词

echocardiography; aortic stenosis

资金

  1. MSP Singapore Company, LLC, Singapore

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Lower systemic arterial compliance (SAC) is associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertension, but this has not been assessed in a prospective study in aortic valve stenosis (AS). Methods Data from 1641 patients (38% women) with initially asymptomatic mild-moderate AS enrolled in the Simvastatin and Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis study was used. Median follow-up was 4.3 years. SAC was assessed from Doppler stroke volume index to central pulse pressure ratio and considered low if <= 0.64 mL/m(2), corresponding to the lower tertile in the population. The association of SAC with outcome was assessed in Cox regression analysis and reported as HR and 95% CI. Results Low SAC at baseline was characterised by older age, female sex, hypertension, obesity, presence of a small aortic root, lower mean aortic gradient and more severe AS by effective aortic valve area (all p<0.01). In Cox regression analysis adjusting for factors, low SAC was associated with higher HRs for cardiovascular death (HR 2.13(95% CI 1.34 to 3.40) and all-cause mortality (HR 1.71(95% CI 1.23 to 2.38)), both p=0.001). The results did not change when systolic or diastolic blood pressure, other measures of AS severity or presence of discordantly graded AS were included in subsequent models. Presence of low SAC did not improve mortality prediction in reclassification analysis. Conclusions In patients with AS without diabetes and known cardiovascular disease, but a high prevalence of hypertension, low SAC was associated with higher cardiovascular and all-cause mortality independent of well-known prognosticators.

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

4.5
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