Pour savoir comment effectuer et gérer un dépôt de document, consultez le « Guide abrégé – Dépôt de documents » sur le site Web de la Bibliothèque. Pour toute question, écrivez à corpus@ulaval.ca.
 

Personne :
Guzzetti, Ezequiel

En cours de chargement...
Photo de profil

Adresse électronique

Date de naissance

Projets de recherche

Structures organisationnelles

Fonction

Nom de famille

Guzzetti

Prénom

Ezequiel

Affiliation

Université Laval

ISNI

ORCID

Identifiant Canadiana

ncf13671164

person.page.name

Résultats de recherche

Voici les éléments 1 - 1 sur 1
  • PublicationAccès libre
    Prevalence of left ventricle non-compaction criteria in adult patients with bicuspid aortic valve versus healthy control subjects
    (BMJ Publishing Group, 2018-10-07) Guzzetti, Ezequiel; Tizón-Marcos, Helena; Larose, Éric; Shen, Mylène; Le Ven, Florent; Chetaille, Philippe; Bédard, Élisabeth; Capoulade, Romain; Pibarot, Philippe; Clavel, Marie-Annick; Tastet, Lionel; Salaun, Erwan; Arsenault, Marie
    Objective The aim of this study was to compare the prevalence of left ventricle non-compaction (LVNC) criteria (or hypertrabeculation) in a cohort of patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) and healthy control subjects (CTL) without cardiovascular disease using cardiovascular MR (CMR). Methods 79 patients with BAV and 85 CTL with tricuspid aortic valve and free of known cardiovascular disease underwent CMR to evaluate the presence of LVNC criteria. The left ventricle was assessed at end-systole and end-diastole, in the short-axis, two-chamber and four-chamber views and divided into the 16 standardised myocardial segments. LVNC was assessed using the non-compacted/compacted (NC/C) myocardium ratio and was considered to be present if at least one of the myocardial segments had a NC/C ratio superior to the cut-off values defined in previous studies: Jenni et al (>2.0 end-systole); Petersen et al (>2.3 end-diastole); or Fazio et al (>2.5 end-diastole). Results 15 CTL (17.6%) vs 8 BAV (10.1%) fulfilled Jenni et al’s criterion; 69 CTL (81.2%) vs 49 BAV (62.0%) fulfilled Petersen et al’s criterion; and 66 CTL (77.6%) vs 43 BAV (54.4%) fulfilled Fazio et al’s criterion. Petersen et al and Fazio et al’s LVNC criteria were met more often by CTL (p=0.006 and p=0.002, respectively) than patients with BAV, whereas this difference was not statistically significant according to Jenni et al’s criterion (p=0.17). In multivariable analyses, after adjusting for age, sex, the presence of significant valve dysfunction (>mild stenosis or >mild regurgitation), indexed LV mass, indexed LV end-diastolic volume and LV ejection fraction, BAV was not associated with any of the three LVNC criteria. Conclusion Patients with BAV do not harbour more LVNC than the general population and there is no evidence that they are at higher risk for the development of LVNC cardiomyopathy.