Skip to main content

Table 1 Comparison of clinical TTE and CMR data

From: Discrepancies between cardiovascular magnetic resonance and Doppler echocardiography in the measurement of transvalvular gradient in aortic stenosis: the effect of flow vorticity

 

Healthy subjects

AS patients

(n=8, mean±SD)

(n=60, mean±SD)

Patient demographics

  

Age (years)

34 ± 8

64 ± 15 *

Gender (men %)

75

65

Body surface area (m2)

1.93 ± 0.26

1.82 ± 0.19

Systolic arterial pressure (mmHg)

116 ± 10

132 ± 23

Diastolic arterial pressure (mmHg)

77 ± 5

72 ± 12

Doppler echocardiography data

  

Valve phenotype (bicuspid, %)

 

36

Aortic valve hemodynamics

  

Stroke volume (mL)

80 ± 20

80 ± 13

Mean transvalvular gradient (mmHg)

5 ± 1

20 ± 10 *

Valve effective orifice area (cm2)

2.67 ± 0.47

1.19 ± 0.28 *

Systemic arterial hemodynamics

  

Systemic arterial compliance (mL.m-2.mmHg-1)

1.06 ± 0.21

0.91 ± 0.32

Systemic vascular resistance (dyne.s.cm-5)

1448 ± 319

1515 ± 338

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance data

  

Aortic valve hemodynamics

  

Stroke volume (mL)

84 ± 14

76 ± 17

Mean transvalvular gradient (mmHg)

3 ± 1

12 ± 7 *

Valve effective orifice area (cm2)

3.08 ± 0.8

1.4 ± 0.41 *

Energy loss (mmHg)

3.33 ± 1.11

13.81 ± 7.99 *

Mean systolic vorticity (1/s)

88 ± 13

125 ± 35 *

Strouhal

0.0174 ± 0.0034

0.0087 ± 0.0029 *

  1. *:p<0.001 with healthy.