Table 6, Clinical evidence summary: Aortic valve area on CT - Evidence review for CT and MRI indications for intervention

Warning: The NCBI web site requires JavaScript to function. more...

Table 6Clinical evidence summary: Aortic valve area on CT

Risk factor and outcome (population)	Number of studies	Effect (95% CI)	Risk of bias	Imprecision	Indirectness	GRADE Quality
Aortic valve area ≤1.2 cm² compared to >1.2 cm² on CT for predicting mortality under medical management Mean follow-up 3.2 years (AS patients undergoing CT and echocardiography in same episode of care, 45% with NYHA class III/IV, mean aortic valve area 0.94 cm²; mean age 76 years)	1 (n=269)	Adjusted HR: 3.16 (1.60 to 6.26)^a	Serious^b	None	None	MODERATE
Aortic valve area ≤1.0 cm² compared to >1.0 cm² on CT for predicting mortality under medical management Mean follow-up 3.2 years (AS patients undergoing CT and echocardiography in same episode of care, 45% with NYHA class III/IV, mean aortic valve area 0.94 cm²; mean age 76 years)	1 (n=269)	Adjusted HR: 1.43 (0.77 to 2.64)^a	Serious^b	Serious^c	None	LOW

Risk factor and outcome

(population)

Number of studies

Effect (95% CI)

Risk of bias

Imprecision

Indirectness

GRADE Quality

Aortic valve area ≤1.2 cm² compared to >1.2 cm² on CT for predicting mortality under medical management

Mean follow-up 3.2 years

(AS patients undergoing CT and echocardiography in same episode of care, 45% with NYHA class III/IV, mean aortic valve area 0.94 cm²; mean age 76 years)

1 (n=269)

Adjusted HR: 3.16 (1.60 to 6.26)^a

Serious^b

None

MODERATE

Aortic valve area ≤1.0 cm² compared to >1.0 cm² on CT for predicting mortality under medical management

Mean follow-up 3.2 years

(AS patients undergoing CT and echocardiography in same episode of care, 45% with NYHA class III/IV, mean aortic valve area 0.94 cm²; mean age 76 years)

1 (n=269)

Adjusted HR: 1.43 (0.77 to 2.64)^a

Serious^b

Serious^c

None

LOW

(a): Methods: multivariable analysis, adjusted for age-adjusted Charlson score index, sex, symptoms, mean gradient and LVEF (age prespecified in protocol was adjusted for but smoking was not)
(b): Downgraded by 1 increment if the majority of the evidence was at high risk of bias, and downgraded by 2 increments if the majority of the evidence was at very high risk of bias
(c): 95% CI crosses null line

From: Evidence review for CT and MRI indications for intervention

Cover of Evidence review for CT and MRI indications for intervention

Evidence review for CT and MRI indications for intervention: Heart valve disease presenting in adults: investigation and management: Evidence review F.

NICE Guideline, No. 208.

London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); 2021 Nov.

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.