A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Current definitions of hemodynamic structural valve deterioration after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement lack consistency. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Objective: New echocardiographic definitions have been proposed for hemodynamic structural valve deterioration. We aimed to study their consistency in classifying structural valve deterioration after surgical aortic valve replacement.

Methods: Data were used of patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement in a multicenter, prospective cohort study with a 5-year follow-up. All patients received the same stented bioprosthesis. Echocardiographic parameters were assessed by an independent core laboratory. Moderate or greater stenotic hemodynamic structural valve deterioration was defined according to Capodanno and colleagues, Dvir and colleagues, and the Valve Academic Research Consortium 3; regurgitation data were not considered in this analysis. Consistency was quantified on the basis of structural valve deterioration classification at subsequent time points.

Results: A total of 1118 patients received implants. Patients' mean age was 70 years, and 75% were male. Hemodynamic structural valve deterioration at any visit was present in 51 patients (4.6%), 32 patients (2.9%), and 34 patients (3.0%) according to Capodanno, Dvir, and Valve Academic Research Consortium 3. A total of 1064 patients (95%) were never labeled with structural valve deterioration by any definition. After the first classification with structural valve deterioration, 59%, 59%, and 65% had no subsequent structural valve deterioration classification according to Capodanno, Dvir, and Valve Academic Research Consortium 3, respectively.

Conclusions: The current definitions of hemodynamic structural valve deterioration are strong negative predictors but inconsistent positive discriminators for the detection of stenotic hemodynamic structural valve deterioration. Although the diagnosis of structural valve deterioration may be categorical, echocardiographic indices lack this degree of precision in the first 5 years after surgical aortic valve replacement. The inconsistency of current structural valve deterioration definitions impedes the detection of true valve degeneration, which challenges the clinical usefulness of these definitions.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11247222PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.xjon.2024.02.023DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

structural valve
52
valve deterioration
52
hemodynamic structural
24
valve
21
aortic valve
16
structural
13
deterioration
13
valve replacement
12
surgical aortic
12
valve academic
12

Similar Publications