Key result
Thermodilution yielded an average aortic regurgitation fraction of 0.40, which correlated positively with the 0.46 average determined by the biplane angio-Fick method (r = 0.59, NS).
Why the study?
How does thermodilution compare to the biplane angio-Fick method for quantifying aortic regurgitation fraction in patients with isolated aortic regurgitation?
Population
23 patients with isolated aortic regurgitation
Comparison
Thermodilution (indicator dilution technique) vs Biplane angio-Fick method (angiographic technique)
Design
Cross-sectional
Authors
Loading...
Angiography accepted as reference for left-sided regurgitant quantification; leaves open validation against modern non-invasive methods in prospective studies.
Observational (n=23)
How does thermodilution compare to the biplane angio-Fick method for quantifying aortic regurgitation fraction in patients with isolated aortic regurgitation?
Effect estimate: r = 0.59
Absolute Event Rate: 0.4% vs 0.46%
p-value: p=NS
Thermodilution provides a comparable estimation of aortic regurgitation fraction to the biplane angio-Fick method, avoiding the cardiovascular effects of contrast dye.
Krayenbuehl et al. (1987) conducted an observational in Isolated aortic regurgitation (n=23). Thermodilution vs. Biplane angio-Fick method was evaluated on Aortic regurgitation fraction (fao) (r = 0.59, p=NS). Thermodilution yielded an average aortic regurgitation fraction of 0.40, which correlated positively with the 0.46 average determined by the biplane angio-Fick method (r = 0.59, NS).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: