Why the study?
Severe aortic stenosis is defined using AVA indexed to BSA despite little supporting evidence and intrinsic limitations, prompting evaluation of whether indexing AVA to height provides better applicability and accuracy.
Does indexing aortic valve area to height (AVA/H) provide better diagnostic and prognostic accuracy than indexing to body surface area (AVA/BSA) in patients with degenerative aortic stenosis?
Cohort (n=1,693)
Yes
Does indexing aortic valve area to height (AVA/H) provide better diagnostic and prognostic accuracy than indexing to body surface area (AVA/BSA) in patients with degenerative aortic stenosis?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Indexing aortic valve area to height (AVA/H < 0.6 cm2/m) provides better diagnostic and prognostic value for severe aortic stenosis than the traditional body surface area indexation.
No abstract yet. The journal hasn't published one we can show.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vulesevic et al. (2020) conducted a cohort in Severe aortic valve stenosis (n=1,693). Aortic valve area indexed to height (AVA/H) vs. Aortic valve area indexed to body surface area (AVA/BSA) was evaluated on Occurrence of AS-related events (HR 8.2, 95% CI 5.6-12.1).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: