Key result
Mitral valve commissurotomy significantly improved the diastolic descent rate of the anterior mitral leaflet from 16.0 mm/sec preoperatively to 37.7 mm/sec postoperatively.
Why the study?
Does echocardiographic evaluation of diastolic descent rate reliably assess outcomes after surgery for mitral stenosis?
Observational (n=25)
No
Does echocardiographic evaluation of diastolic descent rate reliably assess outcomes after surgery for mitral stenosis?
Absolute Event Rate: 37.7% vs 16%
p-value: p=<0.001
Echocardiographic evaluation of the diastolic descent rate is a reliable method for diagnosing and following up patients with mitral stenosis after surgical commissurotomy.
Supports diastolic descent rate for post-commissurotomy monitoring in mitral stenosis; leaves open need for prospective validation.
1) Diastolic descent rate (DDR) of the anterior mitral leaflet improved after the surgery. However, this improvement was not modified with a) atrial fibrillation b) damages of the subvalvular supporting tissue c) valvular calcification d) the method of the operation, namely the open or closed commissurotomy. 2) DDR was fairly well correlated with the mitral orifice area, the cardiac output and the pressure gradient across the mitral valve. Therefore, the echocardiographic diagnosis and the follow up evaluation of the mitral stenosis after the surgery were thought to be very reliable, considering the accuracy of this diagnosis as disclosed in this study. The contributory effect to DDR was discussed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shu et al. (1977) conducted an observational in Mitral valve diseases (mitral stenosis) (n=25). Mitral valve surgery (commissurotomy) vs. Pre-operative baseline was evaluated on Diastolic descent rate (DDR) of the anterior mitral leaflet (p=<0.001). Mitral valve commissurotomy significantly improved the diastolic descent rate of the anterior mitral leaflet from 16.0 mm/sec preoperatively to 37.7 mm/sec postoperatively.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: