Why the study?
Does two-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography assessment of aortic mechanics differentiate disease severity and predict survival in patients with aortic valve disease?
Cohort (n=140)
Does two-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography assessment of aortic mechanics differentiate disease severity and predict survival in patients with aortic valve disease?
Absolute Event Rate: 97.4% vs 73%
p-value: p=0.03
Quantitative assessment of aortic mechanics using 2DSTE reveals greater derangement in aortic stenosis compared to regurgitation and provides prognostic value for survival in aortic valve disease.
PURPOSE: Degenerative aortic valve disease (AVD) is a complex disorder that goes beyond valve itself, also undermining aortic wall. We aimed to assess the ascending aortic mechanics with two-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography (2DSTE) in patients with aortic regurgitation (AR) and hypothesized a relationship with degree of AR. Aortic mechanics were then compared with those of similarly studied healthy controls and patients with aortic stenosis (AS); finally, we aimed to assess the prognostic significance of vascular mechanics in AVD. METHODS: Overall, 73 patients with moderate-to-severe AR and 22 healthy subjects were enrolled, alongside a previously examined cohort (N = 45) with moderate-to-severe AS. Global circumferential ascending aortic strain (CAAS) and strain rate (CAASR) served as indices of aortic deformation; corrected CAAS was calculated as CAAS/pulse pressure (PP). Median clinical follow-up was 438 days. RESULTS: In patients with severe (vs. moderate) AR, CAASR (1.53 ± 0.29/sec vs. 1.90 ± 0.62/sec, P < 0.05) and corrected CAAS (0.14 ± 0.06%/mmHg vs. 0.19 ± 0.08%/mmHg, P < 0.05) were significantly lower, whereas CAAS did not differ significantly. Measurers of aortic mechanics (CAAS, corrected CAAS, CAASR) differed significantly (all P < 0.01) in patients with AS and AR and in healthy subjects, with lower values seen in patients with AS. In follow-up, survival rate of AVD patients with baseline CAASR >0.88/sec was significantly higher (log rank, 97.4% vs. 73.0%; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative measures of aortic mechanics were lower for AS patients, suggesting a more significant derangement of aortic elastic properties. In the context of AVD, vascular mechanics assessment proved useful in gauging clinical prognosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Leite et al. (2016) conducted a cohort in Aortic valve disease (Aortic regurgitation and Aortic stenosis) (n=140). Baseline circumferential ascending aortic strain rate (CAASR) >0.88/sec vs. Baseline CAASR ≤0.88/sec was evaluated on Survival rate (p=0.03).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: