Assessment of small-diameter aortic mechanical prostheses: Physiological relevance of the Doppler gradient, utility of flow augmentation, and limitations of orifice area estimation

Circulation

Volumn 98, Issue 9, 1998, Pages 866-872

  Marcus, Richard H ^a,e   Heinrich, Russell S ^b   Bednarz, James ^a   Lupovitch, Stephen ^a   Abruzzo, Joseph ^a   Borok, Raphael ^c   Vandenberg, Byron ^d   Kerber, Richard E ^d   Piccione, William ^c   Yoganathan, Ajit P ^b   Lang, Roberto M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^c RUSH UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF IOWA HOSPITALS AND CLINICS   (United States)

^e IOWA HEART CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Echocardiography; Hemodynamics; Prosthesis

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; AORTA PROSTHESIS; AORTA STENOSIS; ARTICLE; BIOMECHANICS; BLOOD FLOW; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DOPPLER ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY; ENERGY EXPENDITURE; FEMALE; HEMODYNAMICS; HUMAN; MALE; MEASUREMENT; MODEL; PRESSURE GRADIENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTHESIS FAILURE;

EID: 0032168286     PISSN: 00097322     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1161/01.CIR.98.9.866     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Baumgartner H, Khan SS, DeRobertis M, Czer LS, Maurer G. Doppler assessment of prosthetic valve orifice area: an in vitro study. Circulation 1992;85:2275-2283.
2. Levine RA, Jimoh A, Cape G, McMillan S, Yoganathan AP, Weyman AE. Pressure recovery distal to a stenosis: potential cause of gradient "overestimation" by Doppler echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1989; 13:706-715.
3. Baumgartner H, Khan S, DeRobertis M, Czer L, Maurer G. Discrepancies between Doppler and catheter gradient in aortic prosthetic valves in vitro: a manifestation of localized pressure gradient and pressure recovery. Circulation. 1990;82:1467-1475.
4. Vandervoort PM, Greenberg NL, Powell KA, Cosgrove DM, Thomas JD. Pressure recovery in bileaflet heart valve prostheses: localized high velocities and gradients in central and side orifices with implications for Doppler-catheter gradient relation in aortic and mitral position. Circulation. 1995;92:3464-3472.
5. Khan SS. Pitfalls in the interpretation of Doppler gradients in prosthetic valves. Clin Cardiol. 1992;18:23-28.
6. Cannon SR, Richard KL, Crawford M. Hydraulic estimation of stenotic orifice area: a correction of the Gorlin formula. Circulation. 1985;71: 1170-1178.
7. Walker PG, Yoganathan AP. In vitro pulsatile flow hemodynamics of five mechanical aortic heart valve prostheses. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1992; 6(suppl I):I-113-I-123.
8. Mendenhall S. Heart valves: a mature market? Cardiovascular Network News. 1995;1:1-10.
9. Tatineni S, Barner HB, Pearson AC, Halbe D, Woodruff R, Labovitz AJ. Rest and exercise evaluation of St Jude Medical and Medtronic Hall prostheses: influence of primary lesion, valvular type, valvular size, and left ventricular function. Circulation. 1989;80(suppl I):I-16-I-23.
10. Heinrich RS, Fontaine AA, Grimes RY, Sidhaye A, Yang S, Moore KE, Levine RA, Yoganathan AP. Experimental analysis of fluid mechanical energy losses in aortic valve stenosis: importance of pressure recovery. Ann Biomed Eng. 1996;24:685-694.
11. Munson B, Young D, Okiishi T. Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1990.
12. Leefe S, Gentle C. Theoretical evaluation of energy loss methods in the analysis of prosthetic heart valves. J Biomed Eng. 1987;9:121-127.
13. Gorlin R, Gorlin SG. Hydraulic formula for calculation of the area of the stenotic mitral valve, other cardiac valves, and central circulatory shunts. Am Heart J. 1951;41:1-29.
14. Holen J, Aaslid R, Landmark K, Simonsen S. Determination of pressure gradient in mitral stenosis with a non-invasive ultrasound Doppler technique. Acta Med Scand. 1976;199:455-460.
15. Hatle L, Angelsen B. Doppler Ultrasound in Cardiology. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Lea & Febiger; 1985:24.
16. Fox RW, McDonald AT. Introduction to Fluid Mechanics. 2nd ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1978;149:273-296, 417-423.
17. Rothbart RM, Smucker ML, Gibson RS. Overestimation by Doppler echocardiography of pressure gradients across Starr-Edwards prosthetic valves in the aortic position. Am J Cardiol. 1988;61:475-476.
18. Arabia FA, Talbot TL, Stewart SF, Nast EP, Clark RE. A computerized physiologic pulse duplicator for in-vitro hydrodynamic and ultrasonic studies of prosthetic heart valves. Biomed Instrum Technol. 1989;23: 205-215.
19. Yoganathan AP, Jones M, Sahn DJ, Ridgeway A, Jimoh A, Tamura T. Bernoulli gradient calculations for mechanical aortic valves: in vitro Doppler study. Circulation. 1986;74(suppl II):II-391. Abstract.
20. Ridgway AJ. Ultrasound Doppler Evaluation of Mechanical Aortic Heart Valves [PhD thesis]. Atlanta, Ga: Georgia Institute of Technology; 1986.
21. Aris A, Ramirez I, Camara ML, Carreras F, Borras X, Pons-Llado G. The 20 mm Medtronic Hall prosthesis in the small aortic root. J Heart Valve Dis. 1996;5:459-462.