Normal Values of Aortic Root Size According to Age, Sex, and Race: Results of the World Alliance of Societies of Echocardiography Study.
2D echocardiography
Aorta
Aortic root dimensions
Journal
Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography : official publication of the American Society of Echocardiography
ISSN: 1097-6795
Titre abrégé: J Am Soc Echocardiogr
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8801388
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2022
03 2022
Historique:
received:
21
06
2021
revised:
03
09
2021
accepted:
27
09
2021
pubmed:
8
10
2021
medline:
16
3
2022
entrez:
7
10
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Accurate measurements of the aortic annulus and root are important for guiding therapeutic decisions regarding the need for aortic surgery. Current echocardiographic guidelines for identification of aortic root dilatation are limited because current normative values were derived predominantly from white individuals in narrow age ranges, and based partially on M-mode measurements. Using data from the World Alliance Societies of Echocardiography study, the authors sought to establish normal ranges of aortic dimensions across sexes, races, and a wide range of ages. Adult individuals free of heart, lung, and kidney disease were prospectively enrolled from 15 countries, with even distributions among sexes and age groups: young (18-40 years), middle aged (41-65 years) and old (>65 years). Transthoracic two-dimensional echocardiograms of 1,585 subjects (mean age, 47 ± 17 years; 50.4% men; mean body surface area [BSA], 1.77 ± 0.22 m All aortic root dimensions were larger in men compared with women. After indexing to BSA, all measured dimensions were significantly larger in women, whereas men continued to show larger dimensions after indexing to height. Of note, the upper limits of normal for all aortic dimensions were lower across all age groups, compared with the guidelines. Aortic dimensions were larger in older age groups in both sexes, a trend that persisted regardless of BSA or height adjustment. Last, differences in aortic dimensions were also observed according to race: Asians had the smallest nonindexed aortic dimensions at all levels. There are significant differences in aortic dimensions according to sex, age, and race. Thus, current guideline-recommended normal ranges may need to be adjusted to account for these differences.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Accurate measurements of the aortic annulus and root are important for guiding therapeutic decisions regarding the need for aortic surgery. Current echocardiographic guidelines for identification of aortic root dilatation are limited because current normative values were derived predominantly from white individuals in narrow age ranges, and based partially on M-mode measurements. Using data from the World Alliance Societies of Echocardiography study, the authors sought to establish normal ranges of aortic dimensions across sexes, races, and a wide range of ages.
METHODS
Adult individuals free of heart, lung, and kidney disease were prospectively enrolled from 15 countries, with even distributions among sexes and age groups: young (18-40 years), middle aged (41-65 years) and old (>65 years). Transthoracic two-dimensional echocardiograms of 1,585 subjects (mean age, 47 ± 17 years; 50.4% men; mean body surface area [BSA], 1.77 ± 0.22 m
RESULTS
All aortic root dimensions were larger in men compared with women. After indexing to BSA, all measured dimensions were significantly larger in women, whereas men continued to show larger dimensions after indexing to height. Of note, the upper limits of normal for all aortic dimensions were lower across all age groups, compared with the guidelines. Aortic dimensions were larger in older age groups in both sexes, a trend that persisted regardless of BSA or height adjustment. Last, differences in aortic dimensions were also observed according to race: Asians had the smallest nonindexed aortic dimensions at all levels.
CONCLUSIONS
There are significant differences in aortic dimensions according to sex, age, and race. Thus, current guideline-recommended normal ranges may need to be adjusted to account for these differences.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34619294
pii: S0894-7317(21)00758-6
doi: 10.1016/j.echo.2021.09.011
pmc: PMC9111967
mid: NIHMS1747241
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
267-274Subventions
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : T32 HL007381
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 American Society of Echocardiography. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014 Apr;15(4):415-22
pubmed: 24096712
Cardiovasc Res. 1987 Sep;21(9):678-87
pubmed: 3328650
Heart Lung Circ. 2015 Nov;24(11):1104-10
pubmed: 26105985
Eur J Vasc Surg. 1993 Nov;7(6):690-7
pubmed: 8270073
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016 May;17(5):512-22
pubmed: 26710817
Ann Thorac Surg. 2006 Jan;81(1):169-77
pubmed: 16368358
Am J Cardiol. 2019 Jun 15;123(12):2015-2021
pubmed: 30955867
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2019 Jan;32(1):1-64
pubmed: 30282592
Echo Res Pract. 2014 Sep 1;1(1):1-9
pubmed: 26693286
Circ J. 2008 Nov;72(11):1859-66
pubmed: 18827372
Circulation. 1995 Feb 1;91(3):734-40
pubmed: 7828301
J Cardiovasc Ultrasound. 2015 Sep;23(3):158-72
pubmed: 26448824
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015 Jan;28(1):1-39.e14
pubmed: 25559473
Am J Cardiol. 1989 Sep 1;64(8):507-12
pubmed: 2773795
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017 Feb;18(2):167-179
pubmed: 27044913
Echocardiography. 2016 Jul;33(7):1046-68
pubmed: 27060285
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2019 Jan;32(1):157-162.e2
pubmed: 30459124