ArticleCardiovascular engineering and technology2023
Electrocardiogram to Determine Mitral and Aortic Valve Opening and Closure.
Article in Cardiovascular engineering and technology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interoception vs. Exteroception: Cardiac interoception competes with tactile perception, yet also facilitates self-relevance encoding.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- The Prognostic Value of the Visually Assessed Time Difference between Mitral Valve and Tricuspid Valve Opening Score for Patients with Acute Heart Failure.Acta Cardiologica Sinica · 2025Article
- Non-invasively measured myocardial torsional modulus: Comparison to invasive evaluation of diastolic function.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeKnowledge of the timing of cardiac valve opening and closing is important in cardiac physiology. The relationship between valve motion and electrocardiogram (ECG) is often assumed, however is not clearly defined. Here we investigate the accuracy of cardiac valve timing estimated using only the ECG, compared to Doppler echocardiography (DE) flow imaging as the gold standard.
methodsDE was obtained in 37 patients with simultaneous ECG recording. ECG was digitally processed and identifiable features (QRS, T, P waves) were examined as potential reference points to determine opening and closure of aortic and mitral valves, as compared to DE outflow and inflow measurement. Timing offset of the cardiac valves opening and closure between ECG features and DE was measured from derivation set (n = 19). The obtained mean offset in combination with the ECG features model was then evaluated on a validation set (n = 18). Using the same approach, additional measurement was also done for the right sided valves.
resultsFrom the derivation set, we found a fixed offset of 22 ± 9 ms, 2 ± 13 ms, 90 ± 26 ms, and - 2 ± - 27 ms when comparing S to aortic valve opening, T
conclusionECG features can be used to estimate aortic and mitral valve timings with good accuracy as compared to DE, allowing useful hemodynamic information to be derived from this easily available test.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36971975What 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.