OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine whether the flow-dependent changes in Doppler-derived valve effective orifice area (EOA) are real or due to artifact. BACKGROUND: It has frequently been reported that the EOA may vary with transvalvular flow in patients with aortic stenosis. However, the explanation of the flow dependence of EOA remains controversial and some studies have suggested that the EOA estimated by Doppler-echocardiography (EOA(Dop)) may underestimate the actual EOA at low flow rates. METHODS: One bioprosthetic valve and three rigid orifices were tested in a mock flow circulation model over a wide range of flow rates. The EOA(Dop) was compared with reference values obtained using particle image velocimetry (EOA(PIV)). RESULTS: There was excellent agreement between EOA(Dop) and EOA(PIV) (r2 = 0.94). For rigid orifices of 0.5 and 1.0 cm2, no significant change in the EOA was observed with increasing flow rate. However, substantial increases of both EOA(Dop) and EOA(PIV) were observed when stroke volume increased from 20 to 70 ml both in the 1.5 cm2 rigid orifice (+52% for EOA(Dop) and +54% for EOA(PIV)) and the bioprosthetic valve (+62% for EOA(Dop) and +63% for EOA(PIV)); such changes are explained either by the presence of unsteady effects at low flow rates and/or by an increase in valve leaflet opening. CONCLUSIONS: The flow-dependent changes in EOA(Dop) are not artifacts but represent real changes in EOA attributable either to unsteady effects at low flow rates and/or to changes in valve leaflet opening. Such changes in EOA(Dop) can be relied on for clinical judgment making.
OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine whether the flow-dependent changes in Doppler-derived valve effective orifice area (EOA) are real or due to artifact. BACKGROUND: It has frequently been reported that the EOA may vary with transvalvular flow in patients with aortic stenosis. However, the explanation of the flow dependence of EOA remains controversial and some studies have suggested that the EOA estimated by Doppler-echocardiography (EOA(Dop)) may underestimate the actual EOA at low flow rates. METHODS: One bioprosthetic valve and three rigid orifices were tested in a mock flow circulation model over a wide range of flow rates. The EOA(Dop) was compared with reference values obtained using particle image velocimetry (EOA(PIV)). RESULTS: There was excellent agreement between EOA(Dop) and EOA(PIV) (r2 = 0.94). For rigid orifices of 0.5 and 1.0 cm2, no significant change in the EOA was observed with increasing flow rate. However, substantial increases of both EOA(Dop) and EOA(PIV) were observed when stroke volume increased from 20 to 70 ml both in the 1.5 cm2 rigid orifice (+52% for EOA(Dop) and +54% for EOA(PIV)) and the bioprosthetic valve (+62% for EOA(Dop) and +63% for EOA(PIV)); such changes are explained either by the presence of unsteady effects at low flow rates and/or by an increase in valve leaflet opening. CONCLUSIONS: The flow-dependent changes in EOA(Dop) are not artifacts but represent real changes in EOA attributable either to unsteady effects at low flow rates and/or to changes in valve leaflet opening. Such changes in EOA(Dop) can be relied on for clinical judgment making.
Authors: Julio Garcia; Michael Markl; Susanne Schnell; Bradley Allen; Pegah Entezari; Riti Mahadevia; S Chris Malaisrie; Philippe Pibarot; James Carr; Alex J Barker Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2014-04-24 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Julio Garcia; Oscar R Marrufo; Alfredo O Rodriguez; Eric Larose; Philippe Pibarot; Lyes Kadem Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2012-04-06 Impact factor: 5.364