Key result
Energy loss coefficient using sinotubular junction area best matches CCTA aortic valve area.
Why the study?
Which aortic area measurement site provides the best agreement between the energy loss coefficient (ELCo) and CCTA-derived aortic valve area in patients with aortic stenosis?
Population
69 patients with aortic stenosis who underwent both cardiac computed tomography angiography and…
Comparison
Energy loss coefficient calculation using aortic… vs Direct anatomical aortic valve area measurement…
Design
Cross-sectional
Authors
Loading...
Supports sinotubular junction for ELCo in aortic stenosis; hypothesis-generating and requires outcome validation.
Observational (n=69)
Which aortic area measurement site provides the best agreement between the energy loss coefficient (ELCo) and CCTA-derived aortic valve area in patients with aortic stenosis?
Absolute Event Rate: 0.95% vs 0.96%
p-value: p=.84
Calculating the energy loss coefficient using the sinotubular junction for aortic area measurement provides the best agreement with direct anatomical AVA by CCTA in patients with aortic stenosis.
Yaari et al. (2016) conducted an observational in aortic stenosis (n=69). Energy loss coefficient (ELCo) calculation vs. Cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) AVA planimetry was evaluated on Aortic valve area measurement agreement (p=.84). Energy loss coefficient calculated using aortic area measurement at the sinotubular junction showed the best agreement with CCTA aortic valve area (0.95±0.43 vs 0.96±0.46 cm2, P=0.84).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: