Key result
Continuous infusions of indicator for measuring mitral regurgitation provided superior reproducibility compared to sudden single injections in 19 patients.
Why the study?
Does continuous indicator infusion provide more reliable measurements of mitral regurgitation compared to sudden single injections in patients undergoing cardiac catheterization?
Observational (n=19)
Does continuous indicator infusion provide more reliable measurements of mitral regurgitation compared to sudden single injections in patients undergoing cardiac catheterization?
Continuous indicator infusions provide more reproducible measurements of mitral regurgitation than sudden single injections during cardiac catheterization, though replicate determinations are required for reliability.
May support continuous indicator infusion for reproducible mitral regurgitation quantification during catheterization; leaves open clinical utility pending larger validation studies.
The upstream sampling method for measuring mitral regurgitation was evaluated in 19 patients during retrograde left ventricular and transseptal left atrial catheterization. Measurements obtained by using continuous infusions of indicator were compared, in all patients, with those obtained by using sudden single injections and, in 14 patients, with semiquantitative estimates by mitral valvulography. The mean values for regurgitant flow, total flow, and the regurgitant fraction did not differ significantly for the two dilution techniques. However, measurements of forward flow following sudden injections into the left ventricle were significantly larger than those following sudden injection into the pulmonary artery, while the latter differed insignificantly from measurements during continuous infusions into the left ventricle. Although neither technique had excellent reproducibility, the continuous-infusion method was clearly superior in this respect. The authors concluded that (1) a single measurement of mitral regurgitation by upstream sampling has a probability of large error, (2) continuous infusions in place of sudden injections give more reliable estimates, but (3) continuous infusion measurements are reliable only for mean values from replicate determinations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Frank et al. (1967) conducted an observational in Mitral regurgitation (n=19). Continuous infusions of indicator vs. Sudden single injections was evaluated on Measurement of regurgitant flow, total flow, and regurgitant fraction. Continuous infusions of indicator for measuring mitral regurgitation provided superior reproducibility compared to sudden single injections in 19 patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: