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 t velocity, mean transvalvular gradient, and aortic valve area.

4 w interleaflet differences in LE(sys) affect aortic valve area.

5 or Cox models adjusted for risk factors and aortic valve area.

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

7 transvalvular gradients or to the calculated aortic valve areas.

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

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

10 equiring cardiopulmonary organ support 3.6%, aortic valve area 0.7 (0.5-0.8) cm(2), and left ventricu

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

12 ars, male 185 (60%), with pre-operative mean aortic valve area 0.93 0.32cm(2), LVEF 62 17%) and follo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20 %; aortic valve mean gradient, 23+/-4 mm Hg; aortic valve area, 0.7+/-0.2 cm(2); and cardiac output,

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

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

23 housand five hundred forty-one patients with aortic valve area 1 cm(2) and left ventricular ejection

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

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

26 tained (mean gradient 12.56+/-5.54 mm Hg and aortic valve area 1.69+/-0.52 cm(2)) at 4 years.

27 7+/-5.6 versus 11.6+/-5.0 mm Hg; P=0.12) and aortic valve area (1.72+/-0.37 versus 1.76+/-0.42 cm(2);

28 Patients with HALT had smaller aortic valve areas (1.4+/-0.4 versus 1.7+/-0.5 cm(2); P=

29 Health System with moderate aortic stenosis (aortic valve area, 1-1.5 cm(2); mean gradient, 20-40 mm

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

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

32 icant correlation between PESP and projected aortic valve area and aortic valve calcification density

33 ports a shared genetic etiology with between aortic valve area and birth weight along with other card

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

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

36 In addition to aortic valve area and indexed left atrial volume, percen

37 Aortic valve area and left ventricular hypertrophy predi

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

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

40 lected secondary outcomes included change in aortic valve area and peak aortic jet velocity on echoca

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

42 ular pressure gradient, as well as increased aortic valve area), and decreased levels of osteogenic m

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

44 , indexed left ventricular ventricular mass, aortic valve area, and aortic valve replacement as a tim

45 of increasing AS severity including smaller aortic valve area, and higher maximum velocity and peak

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

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

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

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

50 Aortic valve area (AVA) <=1.0 cm(2) is a defining charac

51 the performance of cardiac CT-derived hybrid aortic valve area (AVA) and planimetry, in combination w

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

62 f a mean pressure gradient >=40 mm Hg and an aortic valve area [AVA] >1 cm(2)).

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

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

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

66 difference in aortic valve mean gradients or aortic valve areas between patients discharged on AC vs.

67 ds for identifying severe AS defined by TTE (aortic valve area by continuity equation <=1.0 cm(2)) in

68 cestry participants, we estimated functional aortic valve area by planimetry from prospectively obtai

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

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

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

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

73 The average aortic valve area determined by intracardiac echocardiog

74 18 cm2 (range 0.37 to 1.01), and the average aortic valve area determined by the Gorlin equation was

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

76 normal valves revealed greater reductions in aortic valve area following closures of NCC (-32.2 [-38.

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

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

79 to measure peak velocity, mean gradient and aortic valve area from magnetic resonance imaging and co

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

81 tudy included 262 patients with moderate AS (aortic valve area >1.0 and <1.5 cm(2); and peak aortic j

82 Patients with moderate AS (aortic valve area >1.0 and <=1.5 cm(2)) were identified

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

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

85 0% (hazard ratio, 2.12; P=0.017) and indexed aortic valve area (hazard ratio, 4.16; P=0.025) were ind

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

87 produce an accurate and precise estimate of aortic valve area in patients with severe aortic stenosi

88 A genome-wide association study of aortic valve area in these UK Biobank participants showe

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

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

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

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

93 efined measures (aortic valve area <= 1 cm2, aortic valve area index <= 0.6 cm2/m2, mean gradient >=

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

95 ortic valve peak velocity 4.38 +/- 0.63 m/s, aortic valve area index 0.45 +/- 0.13cm(2)/m(2)).

96 Aortic valve area index adjusted for pressure recovery (

97 The median (IQR) aortic valve area index was 0.4 (0.3-0.4) cm2/m2.

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

99 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

100 S (defined by aortic valve area <=1 cm(2) or aortic valve area indexed to body surface area <=0.6 cm(

101 ls without imaging demonstrated that smaller aortic valve area is predictive of increased risk for ao

102 s with medically-managed isolated severe AS (aortic valve area < 1 cm(2)) and preserved LVEF (>50%) w

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

113 n fraction and low-gradient aortic stenosis (aortic valve area <1 cm(2) and mean gradient <40 mm Hg)

114 radient 40 mm Hg, or the novel definition of aortic valve area <1 cm(2) at stress FR 210 mL/s, only t

115 Patients with severe AS (aortic valve area <1 cm(2)) on transthoracic echocardiog

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

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

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

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

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

121 atients (50.4% men; mean age, 77 years) with aortic valve area <1.3 cm(2) and analyzed the occurrence

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

123 of age; 60% men) with at least moderate AS (aortic valve area <1.5 cm(2)) and preserved left ventric

124 ring stress, ie, the guideline definition of aortic valve area <1cm(2) and aortic valve mean gradient

125 Furthermore aortic valve area <1cm(2) at stress FR 210 mL/s was the

126 city >1.65 m/s, mean gradient >4.9 mm Hg, or aortic valve area <2.1 cm(2) (men) or <1.7 cm(2) (women)

127 s) based on quantitatively defined measures (aortic valve area <= 1 cm2, aortic valve area index <= 0

128 Patients with an aortic valve area <=1 cm(2) and a mean gradient <40 mm H

129 -five patients with LG severe AS (defined by aortic valve area <=1 cm(2) or aortic valve area indexed

130 Grading of severe (aortic valve area <=1 cm(2)) aortic stenosis with preser

131 potentially indicative of severe AS with an aortic valve area <=1.0 cm(2) were enrolled.

132 nts with adjudicated severe aortic stenosis (aortic valve area <=1.0 cm(2)), low transaortic gradient

133 patients (n=143; age, 73+/-11 years) with an aortic valve area <=1.5 cm(2) underwent cardiopulmonary

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

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

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

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

138 1.1-1.3 cm(2)), (b) standard severe (n=161; aortic valve area, </=1 cm(2); mean gradient >/=40 mm Hg

139 0 mm Hg), and (c) paradoxical severe (n=141; aortic valve area, </=1 cm2 and mean gradient <40 mm Hg)

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

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

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

143 Aortic valve area measurements were submitted to genome-

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

145 7+/-11 years, was 47% female, and had a mean aortic valve area of 0.8+/-0.1 cm(2).

146 Mean aortic valve area on TTE was 0.79+/-0.21 cm(2), while me

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

148 n addition to indexed left atrial volume and aortic valve area (P<0.001).

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

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

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

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

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

154 The mean change in aortic valve area was 0.02 cm(2) (95% CI, -0.09 to 0.12

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

156 In the moderate AS group, mean aortic valve area was 1.2 0.2 cm(2), and mean gradient w

157 Progression of aortic valve area was comparable between groups (estimat

158 Aortic valve area was larger (1.55 0.5 cm(2) vs. 1.37 0.

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

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

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

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

163 Aortic valve area was similar between groups with LGSAS

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

165 ntricular end-diastolic diameter, and larger aortic valve area were independently associated with low

166 .5] mm Hg vs 11.2 [6.0] mm Hg; P < .001) and aortic valve areas were higher (mean [SD], 2.2 [0.7] cm2

167 We constructed a polygenic risk score for aortic valve area, which in a separate cohort of 311 728

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