Key result
2D echo defines normal AVA ranges, linking larger areas to male sex, obesity, and hypertension.
Why the study?
Normative aortic echocardiographic values may vary across demographics and data on Middle East populations are scarce, with variations carrying implications for clinical decision-making.
Observational (n=3,251)
No
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This study establishes region-specific normal reference values for aortic valve area in the Iranian population, demonstrating significant variations based on sex, anthropometric characteristics, and blood pressure.
Purpose Defining normative aortic echocardiographic values in each geographical district is crucial as aortic valve area (AVA) may vary across races, genders, and ages. Notably, variations in normal values can have implications for clinical decision‐making, and available data on the Middle East population is also scarce. We sought to establish normal ranges for aortic valve echocardiographic parameters in the Iranian population and assess the effect of age, gender, weight, height, BMI, BSA, and blood pressure on them. Methods Our data were provided from the web‐based echocardiographic data registry of Imam Khomeini Hospital Complex (IKHC). A total of 3251 healthy subjects older than 18 years old without any valvular stenosis were included in our study. Results AVA's normal range was estimated at 1.92–4.52 and 1.67–3.80 cm 2 in men and women, respectively. The annulus, AVA, AV VTI, and LVOT VTI were significantly larger in males, and this association remained significant after indexing AVA for weight, height, BMI, and BSA. Also, smaller AVA was associated with lower height, weight, BMI, and BSA in both men and women. Obese and hypertensive subjects had significantly larger AVA and annulus diameters. Conclusion Our study provided region‐specific normal reference values for AV echocardiographic parameters and compared them across genders, ages, BMI, and blood pressure groups in the Iranian population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Agahi et al. (2024) conducted an observational in Healthy subjects (n=3,251).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: