Key result
Symptomatic patients with chronic aortic regurgitation had significantly higher mean energy loss in one cardiac cycle compared to asymptomatic patients (121 vs 87; p=0.040).
Why the study?
There is no definitive evaluation method for therapeutic indication other than symptoms in aortic regurgitation, and the study evaluated whether energy loss can quantify subjective symptoms better than conventional metrics.
Does left ventricular energy loss measured by echocardiography correlate with subjective symptoms better than conventional metrics in patients with chronic aortic regurgitation?
Observational (n=15)
Does left ventricular energy loss measured by echocardiography correlate with subjective symptoms better than conventional metrics in patients with chronic aortic regurgitation?
Left ventricular energy loss quantified by echocardiography vector flow mapping may better reflect subjective symptoms in chronic aortic regurgitation than conventional metrics.
LV energy loss may associate with symptoms in chronic AR; leaves open superiority over conventional metrics for symptom assessment.
Objective: 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 [96 to 184]) than in the asymptomatic group (87 [80 to 103]) (p=0.040), whereas the diastolic diameter was higher in the asymptomatic group (65 [59 to 78]) than in the symptomatic group (57 [51 to 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. (2020) conducted an observational in Chronic aortic regurgitation (n=15). Symptomatic status vs. Asymptomatic status was evaluated on Mean energy loss in one cardiac cycle (p=0.040). Symptomatic patients with chronic aortic regurgitation had significantly higher mean energy loss in one cardiac cycle compared to asymptomatic patients (121 vs 87; p=0.040).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: