English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background Effective orifice area (EOA) ≥0.2 cm2 or regurgitant volume (Rvol) ≥30 mL predicts prognostic significance in functional mitral regurgitation (FMR). Both volumetric and proximal isovelocity surface area (PISA) methods enable calculation of these metrics. To determine their clinical value, we compared EOA and Rvol derived by volumetric and PISA quantitation upon outcome of patients with FMR.Methods and Results We examined the outcome of patients with left ventricular ejection fraction &lt;35% and moderate to severe FMR. All had a complete echocardiogram including EOA and Rvol by both standard PISA and volumetric quantitation using total stroke volume calculated by left ventricular end‐diastolic volume×left ventricular ejection fraction and forward flow by Doppler method: EOA=Rvol/mitral regurgitation velocity time integral. Primary outcome was all‐cause mortality or heart transplantation. We examined 177 patients: mean left ventricular ejection fraction 25.2% and 34.5% with ischemic cardiomyopathy. Echo measurements were greater by PISA than volumetric quantitation: EOA (0.18 versus 0.11 cm2 ), Rvol (24.7 versus 16.9 mL), and regurgitant fraction (61 versus 37 %) respectively (allP value &lt;0.001). During 3.6±2.3 years’ follow‐up, patients with EOA ≥0.2 cm2 or Rvol ≥30 mL had a worse outcome than those with EOA &lt;0.2 cm2 or Rvol &lt;30 mL only by volumetric (log rankP =0.003 and 0.004) but not PISA quantitation (log rankP =0.984 and 0.544), respectively.Conclusions Volumetric and PISA methods yield different measurements of EOA and Rvol in FMR; volumetric values exhibit greater prognostic significance. The echo method of quantifying FMR may affect the management of this disorder.

Optimal Quantification of Functional Mitral Regurgitation: Comparison of Volumetric and Proximal Isovelocity Surface Area Methods to Predict Outcome