Literature DB >> 10334438

"Overestimation" of catheter gradients by Doppler ultrasound in patients with aortic stenosis: a predictable manifestation of pressure recovery.

H Baumgartner1, T Stefenelli, J Niederberger, H Schima, G Maurer.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate whether pressure recovery can cause significant differences between Doppler and catheter gradients in patients with aortic stenosis, and whether these differences can be predicted by Doppler echocardiography.
BACKGROUND: Pressure recovery has been shown to be a source of discrepancy between Doppler and catheter gradients across aortic stenoses in vitro. However, the clinical relevance of this phenomenon for the Doppler assessment of aortic stenosis has not been evaluated in patients.
METHODS: Twenty-three patients with various degrees of aortic stenosis were studied with Doppler echocardiography and catheter technique within 24 h. Using an equation previously validated in vitro, pressure recovery was estimated from peak transvalvular velocity, aortic valve area and cross-sectional area of the ascending aorta and compared with the observed differences between Doppler and catheter gradients. Doppler gradients were also corrected by subtracting the predicted pressure recovery and then were compared with the observed catheter gradients.
RESULTS: Predicted differences between Doppler and catheter gradients due to pressure recovery ranged from 5 to 82 mm Hg (mean +/- SD, 19 +/- 16 mm Hg) and 3 to 54 mm Hg (12 +/- 11 mm Hg) for peak and mean gradients, respectively. They compared well with the observed Doppler-catheter gradient differences, ranging from -5 to 75 mm Hg (18 +/- 18 mm Hg) and -7 to 48 mm Hg (11 +/- 13 mm Hg). Good correlation between predicted pressure recovery and observed gradient differences was found (r = 0.90 and 0.85, respectively). Both the noncorrected and the corrected Doppler gradients correlated well with the catheter gradients (r = 0.93-0.97). However, noncorrected Doppler gradients significantly overestimated the catheter gradients (slopes, 1.36 and 1.25 for peak and mean gradients, respectively), while Doppler gradients corrected for pressure recovery showed good agreement with catheter gradients (slopes, 1.03 and 0.96; standard error of estimate [SEE] 8.1 and 6.9 mm Hg; mean difference +/- SD 0.4 +/- 8.0 mm Hg and 1.1 +/- 6.8 mm Hg for peak and mean gradients, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Significant pressure recovery can occur in patients with aortic stenosis and can cause discrepancies between Doppler and catheter gradients. However, pressure recovery and the resulting differences between Doppler and catheter measurements may be predicted from Doppler velocity, aortic valve area and size of the ascending aorta.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10334438     DOI: 10.1016/s0735-1097(99)00066-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol        ISSN: 0735-1097            Impact factor:   24.094


  44 in total

1.  Echocardiographic follow-up of congenital aortic valvular stenosis.

Authors:  Ayse Guler Eroglu; Kadir Babaoglu; Leven Saltik; Funda Oztunç; Tevfik Demir; Gulay Ahunbay; Alper Guzeltas; Gürkan Cetin
Journal:  Pediatr Cardiol       Date:  2006-11-16       Impact factor: 1.655

2.  Echocardiographic follow-up of children with isolated discrete subaortic stenosis.

Authors:  Kadir Babaoglu; Ayse Guler Eroglu; Funda Oztunç; Levent Saltik; Tevfik Demir; Gulay Ahunbay; Alper Guzeltas; Gürkan Cetin
Journal:  Pediatr Cardiol       Date:  2006-11-16       Impact factor: 1.655

3.  Impact of systemic hypertension on the assessment of aortic stenosis.

Authors:  L Kadem; J G Dumesnil; R Rieu; L-G Durand; D Garcia; P Pibarot
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 5.994

4.  The quest for the unholy grail.

Authors:  T Kimball
Journal:  Pediatr Cardiol       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 1.655

5.  Coexisting cardiac diseases and pressure recovery phenomenon contribute to discrepancy between the echocardiographic severity of aortic stenosis and left ventricular hypertrophy.

Authors:  Ayumu Abe; Taisei Mikami; Sanae Kaga; Kanako Tsuji; Kazunori Okada; Shinobu Yokoyama; Hisao Nishino; Masahiro Nakabachi; Mutsumi Nishida; Chikara Shimizu; Hiroyuki Iwano; Satoshi Yamada; Hiroyuki Tsutsui
Journal:  J Echocardiogr       Date:  2013-01-09

6.  Hemodynamic evaluation of suspected severe aortic stenosis leads to a diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Mikhailia Lake; Tanyanan Tanawuttiwat; Martin Bilsker; Eduardo De Marchena
Journal:  Tex Heart Inst J       Date:  2015-02-01

7.  Derivation of a simplified relation for assessing aortic root pressure drop incorporating wall compliance.

Authors:  Hossein Mohammadi; Raymond Cartier; Rosaire Mongrain
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2014-11-28       Impact factor: 2.602

8.  Aortic balloon valvuloplasty before transcatheter valve replacement in high-risk patients with aortic stenosis. Cardiac catheterization and echocardiographic hemodynamic study.

Authors:  V Kamperidis; S Hadjimiltiades; S A Mouratoglou; A Ziakas; G Sianos; A Sarafidou; I Ventoulis; G Kazinakis; G Giannakoulas; G K Efthimiadis; G Parcharidis; H Karvounis
Journal:  Herz       Date:  2015-09-17       Impact factor: 1.443

9.  Magnetic resonance measurement of turbulent kinetic energy for the estimation of irreversible pressure loss in aortic stenosis.

Authors:  Petter Dyverfeldt; Michael D Hope; Elaine E Tseng; David Saloner
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2013-01

Review 10.  Paradoxical low flow and/or low gradient severe aortic stenosis despite preserved left ventricular ejection fraction: implications for diagnosis and treatment.

Authors:  Jean G Dumesnil; Philippe Pibarot; Blase Carabello
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2009-09-08       Impact factor: 29.983

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.