Posterior mitral leaflet motion of ≥4 mm was significantly more frequent in asymptomatic men under 35 years compared to those aged 35 or older (8% vs 2%, p<0.05).
Cross-Sectional (n=300)
Does age affect the extent of posterior mitral leaflet motion during systole in asymptomatic men?
Posterior mitral leaflet motion decreases with age, indicating that age should be considered when determining normal values to avoid overdiagnosing mitral valve prolapse in younger individuals.
Absolute Event Rate: 8% vs 2%
p-value: p=<0.05
The extent of posterior mitral leaflet motion (PMLM) during systole in relation to age was studied in 300 asymptomatic men aged 18-42 years. PMLM of 4 mm or more on two-dimensional directed M-mode echocardiography was found in 8% (16/200) of subjects under age 35 years, but in only 2% (2/100) of those aged 35 years or more (p less than 0.05). On two-dimensional echocardiography, 16% (31/200) of men under 35 years old had PMLM greater than or equal to 0.40 mm2 compared with 1% (1/100) of those 35 years or more (p less than 0.001). The findings were not related to differences in left ventricular cavity dimensions or in the extent of systolic ventricular contraction. Body mass index (BMI) increased with age, but there was a significant and independent negative correlation of age with PMLM after controlling for BMI. The data are compatible with the hypothesis that the aging process is associated with decreased mobility of the mitral valve or annulus with lesser degrees of backward bowing or billowing of the leaflets during systole. Age should be taken into account in determining "normal" values for mitral leaflet motion.
Froom et al. (1989) conducted a cross-sectional in Mitral leaflet motion / Mitral valve prolapse (n=300). Age < 35 years vs. Age ≥ 35 years was evaluated on Posterior mitral leaflet motion (PMLM) ≥ 4 mm on M-mode echocardiography (p=<0.05). Posterior mitral leaflet motion of ≥4 mm was significantly more frequent in asymptomatic men under 35 years compared to those aged 35 or older (8% vs 2%, p<0.05).