Key result
Diastolic cusp-commissure measurements by CMR were smaller than diastolic cusp-cusp dimensions in men (32.0 vs 34.6 mm) and women (28.4 vs 30.7 mm; P<0.001 for both).
Why the study?
What is the optimal method for measuring the aortic root using cardiovascular magnetic resonance in healthy individuals?
Population
120 healthy volunteers, 10 of each gender in each decile between 20 and 80 years
Comparison
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance for aortic… vs Other measurement methods
Design
Cross-sectional
Authors
Loading...
Supplies age- and sex-specific CMR aortic root reference values; leaves open standardization impact on clinical thresholds pending validation.
Cross-Sectional (n=120)
What is the optimal method for measuring the aortic root using cardiovascular magnetic resonance in healthy individuals?
p-value: p=<0.001
Diastolic cusp-commissure measurements are recommended for aortic root assessment by CMR as they correlate better with age and body surface area and correspond closely with echocardiographic reference values.
Burman et al. (2008) conducted a cross-sectional in Healthy volunteers (n=120). Diastolic cusp-commissure measurement by CMR vs. Diastolic cusp-cusp measurement by CMR was evaluated on Aortic root dimensions (p=<0.001). Diastolic cusp-commissure measurements by CMR were smaller than diastolic cusp-cusp dimensions in men (32.0 vs 34.6 mm) and women (28.4 vs 30.7 mm; P<0.001 for both).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: