ArticleEcho research and practice2025
Tracking progression of aortic stenosis with echocardiography.
Article in Echo research 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTransthoracic echocardiography (TTE) is used to assess aortic stenosis (AS) severity and track disease progression. As the field moves to study medical therapies to halt disease progression, reliable non-invasive imaging markers that are sensitive to small changes in disease progression are needed to enable efficient trial designs. The signal-to-noise ratio of commonly obtained TTE-based measures of progressive (non-severe) AS severity is unknown.
methodsThis is a retrospective study of TTEs done at a tertiary referral centre (Tufts Medical Center, Boston MA). A cohort of patients with progressive AS who had two TTEs done within 30 days (in the absence of valve intervention) and a cohort of progressive AS patients with TTEs ≥ 1 year apart, also without valvular intervention, were assembled. Limits of agreement (LOA) and intraclass correlation (ICC) were calculated for aortic valve area (AVA) by continuity equation, peak velocity, and mean gradient. Cohen's d-statistic (d) was calculated for each hemodynamic assessment and a composite marker to assess sensitivity for detecting disease progression normalised to measurement variability.
resultsThe reproducibility cohort included 24 patients. The progression cohort included 35 patients. The median age was 70 years (interquartile range [IQR] 13). 22 patients (37.3%) were female. In the progression cohort, the median time between TTEs was 2.2 years (IQR 3.1 years). In the reproducibility cohort, AVA LOA were -0.7 to 0.8, ICC = 0.61; peak velocity LOA were -149.0 to + 126.7, ICC = 0.29; and mean gradient LOA were -16.2 to 12.2, ICC = 0.06. The d-statistic for annualised change in AVA was -0.29, the d-statistic for annualised change in maximum velocity was 0.46, the d-statistic for mean gradient was 0.55. The d-statistic for a composite, including all three hemodynamic markers, was 0.45.
conclusionsStandard TTE markers of AS severity have variable sensitivity for detecting AS progression. For patients with progressive (non-severe) AS, mean gradient has the highest signal-to-noise ratio and may be the most reliable TTE-based assessment of disease progression.
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.