ArticleJTCVS open2023
The robustness of the flow-gradient classification of severe aortic stenosis.
Article in JTCVS open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Core Laboratory Versus Center-Reported Echocardiographic Assessment of the Native and Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve.Echocardiography (Mount Kisco, N.Y.) · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: A flow-gradient classification is used to determine the indication for intervention for patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) with discordant echocardiographic parameters. We investigated the agreement in flow-gradient classification by stroke volume (SV) measurement at the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) and at the left ventricle. Methods: Data were used from a prospective cohort study and patients with severe AS (aortic valve area index ≤0.6 cm Results: Of 1118 patients, 699 were eligible. The group composition changed considerably as agreement on flow state occurred in only 50% of the measurements. LVOT SV was on average 15.1 mL (95% limits of agreement -24.9:55.1 mL) greater than volumetric SV. When a systematic 1-mm LVOT diameter overestimation was introduced, the low-flow groups halved. Conclusions: There was poor agreement in the flow-gradient classification of severe AS as a result of large differences between LVOT and volumetric SV. Furthermore, this classification was sensitive to small measurement errors. These results stress that parameters beyond the flow-gradient classification should be considered to ensure accurate recommendations for intervention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.