Key result
Celiac artery stenosis was strongly associated with mitral valve prolapse, which was present in 82.4% of patients with the stenosis compared to 7.9% of those without (OR 55.11).
Why the study?
Is celiac artery stenosis associated with mitral valve prolapse in patients undergoing echocardiographic screening?
Cross-Sectional (n=1,560)
No
Is celiac artery stenosis associated with mitral valve prolapse in patients undergoing echocardiographic screening?
This study identifies a novel and strong association between celiac artery stenosis and mitral valve prolapse, suggesting a possible common connective tissue disorder etiology.
BACKGROUND: Celiac artery stenosis (CAS) may be caused by atherosclerotic degeneration or compression exerted by the arched ligament of the diaphragm. Mitral valve prolapse (MVP) is the most common valvular disorder. There are no reports on an association between CAS and MVP. METHODS: 1560 (41%) out of 3780 consecutive patients undergoing echocardiographic assessment of MVP, had Doppler sonography of the celiac tract to detect CAS. RESULTS: CAS was found in 57 (3.7%) subjects (23 males and 34 females) none of whom complained of symptoms related to visceral ischemia. MVP was observed in 47 (82.4%) subjects with and 118 (7.9%) without CAS (p < 0.001). The agreement between MVP and CAS was 39% (95% CI 32-49%). PSV (Peak Systolic Velocity) was the only predictor of CAS in MPV patients (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.08-0.69) as selected in a multivariate logistic model. CONCLUSION: CAS and MVP seem to be significantly associated in patients undergoing consecutive ultrasonographic screening.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Luciano Arcari (2004) conducted a cross-sectional in Mitral valve prolapse and celiac artery stenosis (n=1,560). Celiac artery stenosis vs. No celiac artery stenosis was evaluated on Incidence of mitral valve prolapse (OR 55.11, 95% CI 27.17-111.97, p=<0.001). Celiac artery stenosis was strongly associated with mitral valve prolapse, which was present in 82.4% of patients with the stenosis compared to 7.9% of those without (OR 55.11).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: