BACKGROUND: In aortic prosthetic valves, both the Doppler-estimated gradients and orifice areas are misleading in the assessment of hemodynamic performance. The parameter of major interest is the net pressure gradient after pressure recovery (PR). We, therefore, investigated, in vitro, our ability to predict the net pressure gradient and applied the formulas in a representative patient population with 2 different valve designs. METHODS: We studied the St Jude Medical (SJM) standard valve (size 19-27) and SJM Biocor (size 21-27) in an in vitro steady-flow model with simultaneous Doppler-estimated pressure and catheter pressure measurements. Using echocardiography, we also studied patients who received the SJM (n = 66) and SJM Biocor (n = 45). RESULTS: In the SJM, we observed PR both within the prosthesis and aorta, whereas in the SJM Biocor, PR was only present in the aorta. We estimated the PR within the valve and within the aorta separately from echocardiographic in vitro data, combining a regression equation (valve) with an equation on the basis of fluid mechanics theory (aorta). The difference between estimated and catheter-obtained net gradients (mean +/- SD) was 0.6 +/- 1.6 mm Hg in the SJM and -0.2 +/- 1.9 mm Hg in the SJM Biocor. When these equations were applied in vivo, we found that PR had an overall value of 57 +/- 7% of the peak Doppler gradient in the SJM and 33 +/- 9% in the SJM Biocor. CONCLUSIONS: The in vitro results indicate that it is possible to predict the net pressure gradient by Doppler in bileaflet and stented biologic valves. Our data indicate that important PR is also present in stented biologic valves.
BACKGROUND: In aortic prosthetic valves, both the Doppler-estimated gradients and orifice areas are misleading in the assessment of hemodynamic performance. The parameter of major interest is the net pressure gradient after pressure recovery (PR). We, therefore, investigated, in vitro, our ability to predict the net pressure gradient and applied the formulas in a representative patient population with 2 different valve designs. METHODS: We studied the St Jude Medical (SJM) standard valve (size 19-27) and SJM Biocor (size 21-27) in an in vitro steady-flow model with simultaneous Doppler-estimated pressure and catheter pressure measurements. Using echocardiography, we also studied patients who received the SJM (n = 66) and SJM Biocor (n = 45). RESULTS: In the SJM, we observed PR both within the prosthesis and aorta, whereas in the SJM Biocor, PR was only present in the aorta. We estimated the PR within the valve and within the aorta separately from echocardiographic in vitro data, combining a regression equation (valve) with an equation on the basis of fluid mechanics theory (aorta). The difference between estimated and catheter-obtained net gradients (mean +/- SD) was 0.6 +/- 1.6 mm Hg in the SJM and -0.2 +/- 1.9 mm Hg in the SJM Biocor. When these equations were applied in vivo, we found that PR had an overall value of 57 +/- 7% of the peak Doppler gradient in the SJM and 33 +/- 9% in the SJM Biocor. CONCLUSIONS: The in vitro results indicate that it is possible to predict the net pressure gradient by Doppler in bileaflet and stented biologic valves. Our data indicate that important PR is also present in stented biologic valves.