Why the study?
Does a simplified method for calculating aortic valve resistance correlate accurately with the standard method in patients with aortic stenosis?
Does a simplified method for calculating aortic valve resistance correlate accurately with the standard method in patients with aortic stenosis?
A simplified method for calculating aortic valve resistance is accurate and correlates strongly with the standard method in patients with aortic stenosis.
May support simplified AVR calculation; leaves open prospective validation in aortic stenosis assessment.
Aortic valve resistance (AVR) is a useful index to assess the severity of aortic stenosis. This study compared the standard method to calculate AVR with a simplified method based on the conventional approach for measuring vascular resistance: AVR = (peak-to-peak transaortic pressure gradient/(cardiac output*2.5))*80, where 80 is a conversion factor and 2.5 assumes that the systolic ejection period comprises 40% of the R-R cycle. We compared the standard AVR, the simplified AVR, and the Gorlin-derived value area in 118 patients with pure or dominant aortic stenosis. There was a strong linear correlation between the standard and simplified AVR (r = 0.96, p < .0001). There was a curvilinear relation between the aortic valve area and AVR (r = 0.92, p < .001). In 48 patients with aortic valve area > or = 0.7 cm2, the AVR was < 300 dynes-sec-cm-5 in 45 patients (94%) by the standard method and in 42 patients (88%) by the simplified method (p = NS). In conclusion, our method for measuring AVR is accurate and simpler than the standard method.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kegel et al. (1993) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: