ArticleHeart and vessels2016
Echocardiographically derived effective valve opening area in mitral prostheses: a comparative analysis of various calculations using continuity equation and pressure half time method.
Article in Heart and vessels, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Detection of dysfunctional mitral valve prostheses (MP) remains complex even though being optimized by considering echocardiographically derived prosthetic effective orifice area (VA). The purpose was to compare VA in MP, calculated by the continuity equation (CE) using peak velocities (CEVpeak), mean velocities (CEVmean), velocity-time integrals (CEVTI) and the pressure half time method using 220 ms as constant first (PHT220) as well as optimized constants. In 267 consecutive patients with normally functioning MP, we investigated VA within the first postoperative month. With increasing prosthetic sizes, mean VA values also increase in all calculations. The statistical curves demonstrate no significant difference in graphical steepness but show different levels. Comparison of mean VA showed the known systematic higher values of PHT220 and significantly decreased results when using CEVTI. This systematic difference between mean VA applying PHT220 versus CEVTI is approximately 1.0 cm(2) for all prosthetic sizes. Calculations via CEVpeak were close to the results of CEVTI. CEVmean produced values, which graphically correspond to the PHT220 curve. Only PHT220 detected the constructional equal prosthetic inner ring width between 29 and 31 mm. To compensate the systematic difference between CEVTI and PHT220, an optimized constant of 140 ms was calculated to be applied in PHT (PHT140). VA is a robust and, therefore, preferable parameter for investigating MP. If needed, both CE and PHT are applicable with a systematical difference between CEVTI and PHT220. An optimized constant of 140 ms (PHT140) should be applied when calculating VA of mitral valve prostheses via PHT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26049365What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.