Literature DB >> 22647520

Comparison of invasive and noninvasive assessment of aortic stenosis severity in the elderly.

Zachary M Gertz1, Amresh Raina, William O'Donnell, Brian D McCauley, Charlene Shellenberger, Daniel M Kolansky, Robert L Wilensky, Paul R Forfia, Howard C Herrmann.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Aortic valve area (AVA) in aortic stenosis (AS) can be assessed noninvasively or invasively, typically with similar results. These techniques have not been validated in elderly patients, where common assumptions make them most prone to error. Accurate assessment of AVA is crucial to determine which patients are appropriate candidates for aortic valve replacement. METHODS AND
RESULTS: Fifty elderly patients (mean 86 years, 46% female) referred for cardiac catheterization to evaluate AS also underwent transthoracic echocardiography within 24 hours. To minimize assumptions all patients had 3-dimensional echocardiography (Echo-3D), and at catheterization using directly measured oxygen consumption (Cath-mVo(2)) and thermodilution cardiac output (Cath-TD). Correlation between Cath-mVo(2) and Echo-3D AVA was poor (r=0.41). Cath-TD AVA had a moderate correlation with Echo-3D AVA (r=0.59). Cath-mVo(2) (AVA=0.69 cm(2)) and Cath-TD (AVA=0.66 cm(2)) underestimated AVA compared with Echo-3D (AVA=0.76 cm(2;) P=0.08 for comparison with Cath-mVo(2); P=0.001 for Cath-TD). Compared with Echo-3D, the sensitivity and specificity for determining critical disease (AVA <0.8 cm(2)) were 81% and 42% for Cath-mVo(2), and 97% and 53% for Cath-TD. The only independent predictor of the difference between noninvasive and invasive AVA was stroke volume index (P<0.01). Resistance, a less flow-dependent measure, showed a stronger correlation between Echo-3D and Cath-mVo(2) (r=0.69), and Echo-3D and Cath-TD (r=0.77).
CONCLUSIONS: Standard techniques of AVA assessment for AS show poor correlation in elderly patients, with frequent misclassification of critical AS. Less flow-dependent measures, such as resistance, should be considered to ensure that only appropriate patients are treated with aortic valve replacement.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22647520     DOI: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.111.967836

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Interv        ISSN: 1941-7640            Impact factor:   6.546


  5 in total

1.  Discrepancies between direct catheter and echocardiography-based values in aortic stenosis.

Authors:  Chia-Shing Yang; Erik S Marshall; Zaher Fanari; Michael J Kostal; Joseph T West; Paul Kolm; William S Weintraub; Andrew J Doorey
Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2015-05-29       Impact factor: 2.692

2.  Impact of Catheterization Lab Computer Software Settings on Hemodynamic Assessment of Aortic Stenosis.

Authors:  Zaher Fanari; Anitha Rajamanickam; Mathew Grove; Sumaya Hammami; Cassie Walls; Paul Kolm; William Weintraub; Andrew J Doorey
Journal:  Del Med J       Date:  2016-07

3.  The Impact of Direct Cardiac Output Determination On Using A Widely Available Direct Continuous Oxygen Consumption Measuring Device On The Hemodynamic Assessment of Aortic Valve.

Authors:  Zaher Fanari; Matthew Grove; Anitha Rajamanickam; Sumaya Hammami; Cassie Walls; Paul Kolm; Mitchell Saltzberg; William S Weintraub; Andrew J Doorey
Journal:  Del Med J       Date:  2016-09

4.  Cardiac output determination using a widely available direct continuous oxygen consumption measuring device: a practical way to get back to the gold standard.

Authors:  Zaher Fanari; Matthew Grove; Anitha Rajamanickam; Sumaya Hammami; Cassie Walls; Paul Kolm; Mitchell Saltzberg; William S Weintraub; Andrew J Doorey
Journal:  Cardiovasc Revasc Med       Date:  2016-02-27

5.  A Pilot Study Comparing Aortic Valve Area Estimates Derived from Fick Cardiac Output with Estimates Based on Cheetah-NICOM Cardiac Output.

Authors:  Ludmil Mitrev; Noud van Helmond; Georges Kaddissi; Ahmed Awad; Kinjal Patel; Janah Aji; Jeffrey Ogbara; Zahi Rafeq; Vineeth Nagubandi; Debbie Orr; John Gaughan; Michael Rosenbloom
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-05-12       Impact factor: 4.379

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.