ArticleEuropean heart journal. Imaging methods and practice2025
EACVI survey on evaluation and quantification of aortic regurgitation by multi-modality imaging.
Article in European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice, 2025. 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: To investigate the real-world, current clinical practice of the assessment and management of aortic regurgitation (AR). Methods and results: An electronic survey was distributed to cardiovascular imaging specialists by the European Society Association of Cardiovascular Imaging Scientific Initiatives Committee. Three hundred respondents from 66 countries completed the survey. In patients where initial qualitative evaluation suggested moderate AR, regurgitation severity was further characterized using vena contracta in 83%, pressure half-time in 70%, jet width/outflow tract diameter in 59%, regurgitant volume/effective orifice area 57% and three-dimensional vena contract in 20% of respondents. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) was used by 72% of respondents when transthoracic echocardiographic (TTE) image quality was poor and 74% of respondents when there was discordance between Doppler findings and ventricular assessments. CMR 4-dimensional flow was performed by 19% of respondents. Left ventricular (LV) diameters were measured at the mitral valve level by 52% and at the mid LV by 43% of respondents. LV volumes were measured using TTE by 70%, with CMR by 40% and with CT by 2% of respondents. Conclusion: There is heterogeneity in the echocardiographic methods used to quantify AR. The vena-contracta is the most commonly used for assessment of AR severity with relative underutilisation of quantitative methods. CMR is widely used to assess AR severity when echocardiographic assessments are uncertain. There is variation in the anatomical location to measure LV dilatation and variable use of LV volumes which may impact decision making 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.