Figure 2 Comparison of peak transaortic velocity of different approach.
3C: apical 3 chamber view, 5C: apical 5 chamber view, R: right parasternal approach.
Figure 3 cET, cAT, and AT/ET by different approach. cET was no significant different between 3 different approaches. cAT was prolonged in R approach compared to 3C or 5C approach. AT/ET was greater in R approach than that of 3C or 5C approach. 3C: apical 3 chamber view, 5C: apical 5 chamber view, R: right parasternal approach.
Figure 4 AT/ET-peak V relation in 3C, 5C, and R approaches.AT/ET-peak V relation of R approach was significantly upward shifted form 3C or 5C approach (p<0.05).
Figure 5 AT/ET-AVAi relation in 3C, 5C, and R approaches.AT/ET-AVAi relation of R approach was significantly upward shifted form 3C or 5C approach (p<0.05).
Figure 6 ROC analysis of AT/ET cutoff value for severe AS. Left (A): by using AT/ET of 3C, cutoff value was 0.305 (AUC = 0.094), middle (B): by using AT/ET of 5C, cutoff value was 0.308 (AUC = 0.94), right (C): by using AT/ET of R, cutoff value was 0.331 (AUC = 0.91). Cutoff value for severe AS was larger in R than in 3C or 5C.