Why the study?
There is currently no definitive evaluation method for therapeutic indication other than symptoms in aortic regurgitation, and whether novel energy loss can quantify subjective symptoms better than conventional metrics is unknown.
Does energy loss measured by transesophageal echocardiography vector flow mapping correlate with subjective symptoms in patients with chronic aortic regurgitation?
Does energy loss measured by transesophageal echocardiography vector flow mapping correlate with subjective symptoms in patients with chronic aortic regurgitation?
Preoperative energy loss measured by vector flow mapping is significantly higher in symptomatic patients with chronic aortic regurgitation compared to asymptomatic patients, suggesting its potential as an objective metric for therapeutic indication.
Energy loss may associate with symptoms in chronic AR; hypothesis-generating for vector flow mapping as objective metric, needs prospective validation.
Background There is currently no subjective, definitive evaluation method for therapeutic indication other than symptoms in aortic regurgitation. Energy loss, a novel parameter of cardiac workload, can be visualized and quantified using echocardiography vector flow mapping. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate whether energy loss in patients with chronic aortic regurgitation can quantify their subjective symptoms more clearly than other conventional metrics. Methods We studied 15 patients undergoing elective aortic valve surgery for aortic regurgitation. We divided the patients into symptomatic and asymptomatic groups using their admission records. We analyzed the mean energy loss in one cardiac cycle using transesophageal echocardiography during the preoperative period. The relationships between symptoms, energy loss, and other conventional metrics were statistically analyzed. Results There were seven and eight patients in the symptomatic and asymptomatic groups, respectively. The mean energy loss of one cardiac cycle was higher in the symptomatic group (121 mW/m [96–184]) than in the asymptomatic group (87 mW/m [80–103]) ( p = 0.040), whereas the diastolic diameter was higher in the asymptomatic group (65 mm [59–78]) than in the symptomatic group (57 mm [51–57]) ( p = 0.040). There was no significant difference between the symptomatic and asymptomatic groups in terms of other conventional metrics. Conclusions An energy loss can quantify patients' subjective symptoms more clearly than other conventional metrics. The small sample size is the primary limitation of our study, further studies assessing larger cohort of patients are warranted to validate our findings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kainuma et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: