Cargando…

Aortic propagation velocity in predicting coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Coronary artery disease (CAD) and its outcome, myocardial infarction, is yet a significant etiology of mortality and morbidity nowadays. The aortic propagation velocity (APV) can be a simple, straightforward and novel echocardiographic index for the risk stratification in the evaluation of CAD. In t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ghaderi, Fereshteh, Niroomand, Shabnam, Poorzand, Hoorak, Alimi, Hedieh, Bigdelu, Laila, Fazlinezhad, Afsoon, Keihanian, Faeze
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10662884/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37478268
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000034243
Descripción
Sumario:Coronary artery disease (CAD) and its outcome, myocardial infarction, is yet a significant etiology of mortality and morbidity nowadays. The aortic propagation velocity (APV) can be a simple, straightforward and novel echocardiographic index for the risk stratification in the evaluation of CAD. In this meta-analysis, we evaluated the predictive role of APV in CAD. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Relevant electronic bibliographies (PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, EMbase, the Cochrane library) were explored. Related reports were selected according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was performed using the Comprehensive Meta-analysis 2.0 software. RESULTS: Eventually, 5 articles met the inclusion criteria and included in the meta-analysis. Five studies with 490 patients reported the APV mean in CAD and non-CAD groups. A random-effect model was used and the pooled findings demonstrated a significant higher APV in non-CAD group compared to CAD group (SMD: 2.39, 95% CI: 1.70–3.07, P < .001, I(2): 84%, Q: 19.03). The diagnostic value of APV in predicting CAD showed 86.3% sensitivity (95% CI: 74–91, P value < .001, I(2): 65%, Q: 8.53, P value: .03) and 83.8% specificity (95% CI: 69–94, P value < .001, I(2): 60%, Q: 9.89, P value: .01). CONCLUSION: There was a predictive role of APV in CAD with suitable specificity and sensitivity. Moreover, aortic distensibility and aortic strain were significantly different in CAD and non-CAD patients. APV could be used as a good noninvasive tool for screening CAD.