cardiology careers collections past issues search home
     

J Am Coll Cardiol, 1992; 20:1362-1370
© 1992 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Vasan, R.
Right arrow Articles by Kumar, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Vasan, R.
Right arrow Articles by Kumar, M.

Value and limitations of Doppler echocardiographic determination of mitral valve area in Lutembacher syndrome

RS Vasan, S Shrivastava, and MV Kumar

Department of Cardiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi.

OBJECTIVES. Our objective was to compare the Doppler pressure half-time, Doppler continuity equation and two-dimensional echocardiographic planimetric methods of estimating mitral valve area in Lutembacher syndrome. BACKGROUND. Fluid dynamics theory predicts that mitral pressure half-time varies inversely with mitral valve area and directly with net chamber compliance and the peak early diastolic transmitral gradient in pure mitral stenosis. The effects of an atrial shunt on these interrelations have not been investigated. METHODS. Correlation and agreement between mitral valve area estimates obtained by the three methods and that obtained by cardiac catheterization was ascertained in 11 patients with Lutembacher syndrome. RESULTS. Valve areas determined by planimetry and the continuity equation method correlated and agreed well with catheterization measurements (r = 0.83 and 0.81, respectively). The pressure half-time method consistently overestimated mitral valve area; the extent of overestimation was greater in patients with larger atrial shunts. The hemodynamic pressure half-time was independent of the mitral valve area, chamber compliance and the peak transmitral gradient. It was dependent on the magnitude of the atrial shunt, although the correlation obtained was only fair (r = 0.61). CONCLUSIONS. These findings suggest that the Doppler pressure half-time method is an inaccurate measure of mitral valve area whenever an atrial shunt coexists with mitral stenosis. Planimetry and the Doppler continuity equation methods yield accurate estimates of mitral valve area in Lutembacher syndrome.




 
  cardiology careers collections past issues search home