ライフサイエンスコーパス: aortic valve area

1 range, 17% to 233%) was linearly related to aortic valve area.

2 and mean gradient and a smaller decrease in aortic valve area.

3 ar peak systolic gradients and to calculated aortic valve areas.

4 transvalvular gradients or to the calculated aortic valve areas.

5 in patients who cognitively improved (median aortic valve area 0.60 cm(2)) as compared with patients

6 ty-two patients (mean age 82+/-7 years, mean aortic valve area 0.69+/-0.19 cm(2)) underwent balloon-e

7 ed with patients who did not improve (median aortic valve area 0.70 cm(2); P=0.01).

8 , mean gradient (41+/-18 mm Hg), and indexed aortic valve area (0.41+/-0.12 cm(2)/m(2)) were similar

9 Aortic valve area (0.86+/-0.11 to 1.02+/-0.16 cm(2); P=0

10 ients with symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) (aortic valve area = 0.6 +/- 0.1 cm2) and two control pat

11 tients with moderate-severe asymptomatic AS (aortic valve area, 0.5+/-0.1 cm(2)/m(2); peak gradient,

12 aortic valve mean gradient, 44 +/- 18 mm Hg; aortic valve area, 0.6 +/- 0.2 cm2; and cardiac output,

13 ment were included (74+/-8 years; 42% women; aortic valve area, 0.69+/-0.16 cm(2)).

14 ith severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (mean aortic valve area, 0.7 +/- 0.2 cm(2); ejection fraction,

15 %; aortic valve mean gradient, 23+/-4 mm Hg; aortic valve area, 0.7+/-0.2 cm(2); and cardiac output,

16 e, 70 years [range, 63-75 years]; male, 66%; aortic valve area, 0.9 cm(2) [range, 0.7-1.2 cm(2)]) und

17 ient, patients with LFLG had more severe AS (aortic valve area=0.7+/-0.12 cm(2) versus 0.86+/-0.14 cm

18 secutive patients with at least moderate AS (aortic valve area 1.03 +/- 0.26 cm(2); mean gradient 36

19 er TAVR showed durable haemodynamic benefit (aortic valve area 1.52 cm(2) at 5 years, mean gradient 1

20 computed tomography in 665 patients with AS (aortic valve area, 1.05+/-0.35 cm(2); mean gradient, 39+

21 ere classified as (a) moderate-severe (n=93; aortic valve area, 1.1-1.3 cm(2)), (b) standard severe (

22 ocardiography showed a sustained increase in aortic valve area and decrease in transvalvular gradient

23 ge in EF was related to smaller preoperative aortic valve area and female sex.

24 Aortic valve area and left ventricular hypertrophy predi

25 en limited to valve-specific factors such as aortic valve area and mean transaortic pressure gradient

26 ghty-seven consecutive patients with reduced aortic valve area and normal stroke volume index undergo

27 phic analysis showed a sustained increase in aortic-valve area and a decrease in aortic-valve gradien

28 iography can allow direct measurement of the aortic valve area, and 2) compare the directly measured

29 Correcting for risk factors, LV mass index, aortic valve area, and stroke volume index, LVEF was ind

30 svalvular peak pressure gradient, calculated aortic valve area, and whether simultaneous coronary art

31 for age, coronary artery disease, projected aortic valve area at a normal flow rate and type of trea

32 patients (73+/-11 years of age; 75 men) with aortic valve area (AVA) <0.6 cm(2)/m(2) and ejection fra

33 ients older than the age of 60 years with an aortic valve area (AVA) between 1.0 and 2.0 cm(2) were i

34 from 22 +/- 12 mm Hg to 39 +/- 19 mm Hg, and aortic valve area (AVA) decreased from 1.20 +/- 0.35 cm(

35 Aortic valve area (AVA) in aortic stenosis (AS) can be a

36 er magnetic resonance (MR) planimetry of the aortic valve area (AVA) may prove to be a reliable, non-

37 as to evaluate whether the rate of change in aortic valve area (AVA) measured during the ejection pha

38 ventricular mass (LVM) regression, change in aortic valve area (AVA), and DPT.

39 vide reproducible and accurate evaluation of aortic valve area (AVA), aortic velocities, and gradient

40 by EBCT and AS severity by echocardiographic aortic valve area (AVA).

41 ical variables were related to the change in aortic valve area (AVA).

42 ndent physiologic/structural determinants of aortic valve area (AVA)/mean gradient (MG) relationship;

43 n gradient [MG] <40 mm Hg), a priori severe (aortic valve area [AVA] </=1.0 cm(2)) aortic stenosis (A

44 velocity >/=4 m/s, mean gradient >40 mm Hg, aortic valve area [AVA] <1 cm(2), or AVA index <0.6 cm(2

45 Moderate AS was defined as aortic valve area between 1.0 and 1.5 cm(2) and LV systo

46 ned by intracardiac echocardiography and the aortic valve area calculated by the Gorlin (r = 0.78, p

47 ssion of mean and peak gradients, as well as aortic valve area changes.

48 consistent, particularly with respect to the aortic valve area cutoff value.

49 The average aortic valve area determined by intracardiac echocardiog

50 re was a significant correlation between the aortic valve area determined by intracardiac echocardiog

51 18 cm2 (range 0.37 to 1.01), and the average aortic valve area determined by the Gorlin equation was

52 ogical improvements now allow us to evaluate aortic valve area directly by short axis planimetry.

53 When annualized, the decrease in aortic valve area for the nonstatin group was 0.11+/-0.1

54 e area, and 2) compare the directly measured aortic valve area from intracardiac echocardiography wit

55 cardiac echocardiography with the calculated aortic valve area from the Gorlin and continuity equatio

56 ) and moderate AS (mean gradient, <40 mm Hg; aortic valve area, >1.0 cm(2)).

57 milar with respect to decline in indexed neo-aortic valve area, >mild neo-aortic valve regurgitation

58 0% (hazard ratio, 2.12; P=0.017) and indexed aortic valve area (hazard ratio, 4.16; P=0.025) were ind

59 Severity of impairment was related to aortic valve area, hemodynamic load imposed, and diastol

60 hocardiography for direct measurement of the aortic valve area, including four patients studied both

61 Calculated aortic valve area increased a small amount for both meth

62 Mean aortic valve area increased from 0.62 +/- 0.17 cm(2) to

63 Aortic valve area increased to >/=1.0 cm(2) in 6 LF (24%

64 ymptom burden but less severe AS measured by aortic valve area index (0.50+/-0.09 versus 0.40+/-0.08

65 Aortic valve area index adjusted for pressure recovery (

66 rity measured by peak aortic jet velocity or aortic valve area index, AVC load, absolute or indexed,

67 4.05+/-0.99 versus 3.93+/-0.91 m/s, P=0.11; aortic valve area index: 0.55+/-0.20 versus 0.56+/-0.18

68 did not undergo AVR (control group), with an aortic valve area < or = 0.75 cm(2), LV ejection fractio

69 All patients with a final aortic valve area < or =1.2 cm2 at peak dobutamine infus

70 transvalvular gradient <40 mm Hg and indexed aortic valve area </=0.6 cm(2)/m(2)) prospectively enrol

71 c stenosis (mean gradient <40 mm Hg, indexed aortic valve area </=0.6 cm2/m2) with preserved left ven

72 ionally defined severe aortic stenosis area (aortic valve area </=1 cm(2), mean gradient >40 mm Hg, e

73 t Association guidelines define severe AS as aortic valve area </=1 cm(2), mean gradient of >/=40 mm

74 AND A total of 1140 patients with severe AS (aortic valve area </=1 cm(2), Vmax >/=4 m/s) and preserv

75 ts with severe aortic stenosis (SAS; indexed aortic valve area <0.6 cm(2)/m(2)) present with low tran

76 patients with severe aortic stenosis (n=105; aortic valve area <0.6 cm(2)/m(2); age, 71+/-9 years; ma

77 Severe PAS was defined as aortic valve area <0.8 cm(2), mean aortic valve gradient

78 gradient <40 mm Hg) severe aortic stenosis (aortic valve area <1 cm(2)) with preserved ejection frac

79 ction fraction ("paradoxic" aortic stenosis; aortic valve area <1 cm(2), mean gradient <40 mm Hg, eje

80 ts with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis (aortic valve area <1 cm(2), peak jet velocity >3.5 m/s)

81 ed 1704 consecutive patients with severe AS (aortic valve area <1.0 cm(2)) and preserved ejection fra

82 aortic stenosis (mean gradient </=40 mm Hg, aortic valve area <1.0 cm(2), left ventricular ejection

83 AS patients (70 +/- 14 years, 57% men) with aortic valve area <1.3 cm(2) evaluated between January t

84 enosis (AS) most often presents with reduced aortic valve area (<1 cm(2)), normal stroke volume index

85 transvalvular gradient (<40 mm Hg) and small aortic valve area (<1.0 cm(2)) in patients with aortic s

86 cm(2), mean gradient>/=40 mm Hg, or indexed aortic valve area<0.6 cm(2)/m(2)) who underwent surgical

87 d 2017 patients with severe aortic stenosis (aortic valve area<1 cm(2), mean gradient>/=40 mm Hg, or

88 1.1-1.3 cm(2)), (b) standard severe (n=161; aortic valve area, </=1 cm(2); mean gradient >/=40 mm Hg

89 0 mm Hg), and (c) paradoxical severe (n=141; aortic valve area, </=1 cm2 and mean gradient <40 mm Hg)

90 tients with LGSAS (mean gradient, <40 mm Hg; aortic valve area, <1.0 cm(2)) and preserved ejection fr

91 fraction (<or=0.35), severe aortic stenosis (aortic-valve area, <or=1 cm2), and a depressed cardiac i

92 The average aortic valve area (mean +/- SD) determined by intracardi

93 fine severe aortic stenosis in patients with aortic valve area normalized to body surface area (AVA/B

94 coronary disease (P = .002) and preoperative aortic valve area (P = .03).

95 ansaortic pressure gradient (P=0.076) or the aortic valve area (P=0.160) between the 2 groups.

96 TAVR resulted in larger aortic-valve areas than did surgery and also resulted in

97 resulted in lower mean gradients and larger aortic-valve areas than surgery.

98 as a routine method for quantifying stenotic aortic valve area, to compare this method with the accep

99 ic valve; however, direct measurement of the aortic valve area using this technique in a clinical set

100 Mean aortic valve area was 0.7 +/- 0.2 cm(2).

101 Aortic valve area was lower in low flow/LVEF groups (LEF

102 The preinterventional aortic valve area was lower in patients who cognitively

103 n in vivo SPECT/CT images, MMP signal in the aortic valve area was significantly higher at 6 mo in WD

104 Aortic valve area was similar between groups (0.81+/-0.1

105 Aortic valve area was similar between groups with LGSAS

106 /-SD) ejection fraction was 0.21+/-0.08; the aortic-valve area was 0.6+/-0.2 cm2, with peak and mean

107 ac echocardiography can directly measure the aortic valve area with an accuracy similar to the invasi