Literature DB >> 29925543

Use of routinely captured echocardiographic data in the diagnosis of severe aortic stenosis.

Steven M Bradley1,2, Katie Foag1,3, Khua Monteagudo2, Pam Rush1,2, Craig E Strauss1,2, Mario Gössl1,2,4, Paul Sorajja1,2,4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the implications of applying guideline-recommended definitions of aortic stenosis to echocardiographic data captured in routine clinical care.
METHODS: Retrospective observational study of 213 174 patients who underwent transthoracic echocardiographic imaging within Allina Health between January 2013 and October 2017. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of echocardiographic measures for severe aortic stenosis were determined relative to the documented interpretation of severe aortic stenosis.
RESULTS: Among 77 067 patients with complete assessment of the aortic valve, 1219 (1.6%) patients were categorised as having severe aortic stenosis by the echocardiographic reader. Relative to the documented interpretation, aortic valve area (AVA) as a measure of severe aortic stenosis had the high sensitivity (94.1%) but a low positive predictive value (37.5%). Aortic valve peak velocity and mean gradient were specific (>99%), but less sensitive (<70%). A measure incorporating peak velocity, mean gradient and dimensionless index (either by velocity time integral or peak velocity ratio) achieved a balance of sensitivity (92%) and specificity (99%) with little detriment in accuracy relative to peak velocity and mean gradient alone (98.9% vs 99.3%). Using all available data, the proportion of patients whose echocardiogram could be assessed for aortic stenosis was 79.8% as compared with 52.7% by documented interpretation alone.
CONCLUSION: A measure that used dimensionless index in place of AVA addressed discrepancies between quantitative echocardiographic data and the documented interpretation of severe aortic stenosis. These findings highlight the importance of understanding the limitations of clinical data as it relates to quality improvement efforts and pragmatic research design. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2019. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

Entities:  

Keywords:  echocardiography; electronic medical records

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29925543     DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2018-313269

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Heart        ISSN: 1355-6037            Impact factor:   5.994


  3 in total

1.  FUSIC HD. Comprehensive haemodynamic assessment with ultrasound.

Authors:  Ashley Miller; Marcus Peck; Tom Clark; Hannah Conway; Segun Olusanya; Nick Fletcher; Nick Coleman; Prashant Parulekar; Jonathan Aron; Justin Kirk-Bayley; Jonathan Nicholas Wilkinson; Adrian Wong; Jennie Stephens; Antonio Rubino; Ben Attwood; Andrew Walden; Andrew Breen; Manprit Waraich; Catherine Nix; Simon Hayward
Journal:  J Intensive Care Soc       Date:  2021-04-23

2.  Valve area and the risk of overestimating aortic stenosis.

Authors:  Ana González-Mansilla; Pablo Martinez-Legazpi; Andrea Prieto; Elena Gomá; Pilar Haurigot; Candelas Pérez Del Villar; Victor Cuadrado; Antonia Delgado-Montero; Raquel Prieto; Teresa Mombiela; Esther Pérez-David; Elena Rodríguez González; Yolanda Benito; Raquel Yotti; Manuel Pérez-Vallina; Francisco Fernández-Avilés; Javier Bermejo
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2019-02-16       Impact factor: 5.994

Review 3.  Valvulo-Arterial Impedance and Dimensionless Index for Risk Stratifying Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis.

Authors:  Yogamaya Mantha; Shutaro Futami; Shohei Moriyama; Michinari Hieda
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2021-12-02
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.