Key result
The proximal flow convergence method accurately quantified mitral regurgitation compared to pulsed Doppler (r=0.94-0.95) and showed regurgitant orifice area varies by etiology (P<0.0001).
Why the study?
Does the proximal flow convergence method accurately quantify mitral regurgitant flow and orifice area and characterize their temporal variation across different etiologies?
Observational (n=56)
Does the proximal flow convergence method accurately quantify mitral regurgitant flow and orifice area and characterize their temporal variation across different etiologies?
The proximal flow convergence method accurately quantifies mitral regurgitation and reveals that regurgitant orifice area varies dynamically throughout systole depending on the underlying etiology.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports proximal flow convergence for mitral regurgitation quantification; leaves open whether etiology-specific orifice dynamics alter management.
No abstract yet. The journal hasn't published one we can show.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schwammenthal et al. (1994) conducted an observational in Mitral regurgitation (n=56). Proximal flow convergence method vs. Conventional pulsed Doppler and angiography was evaluated on Correlation of mean regurgitant flow rate and stroke volume with conventional pulsed Doppler and angiography (r = 0.94-0.95, p=< .001). The proximal flow convergence method accurately quantified mitral regurgitation compared to pulsed Doppler (r=0.94-0.95) and showed regurgitant orifice area varies by etiology (P<0.0001).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: