JACC
HOME SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES CARDIOSOURCE SEARCH HELP FEEDBACK
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Am Coll Cardiol, 1999; 33:1655-1661
© 1999 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
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 Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Baumgartner, H.
Right arrow Articles by Maurer, G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Baumgartner, H.
Right arrow Articles by Maurer, G.

CLINICAL STUDIES

"overestimation" of catheter gradients by doppler ultrasound in patients with aortic stenosis: a predictable manifestation of pressure recovery

Helmut Baumgartner, MD, FACCa, Thomas Stefenelli, MD, FACCa, Julia Niederberger, MDa, Heinrich Schima, PhD* and Gerald Maurer, MD, FACCa

a Department of Cardiology, Vienna General Hospital, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
* Center of Biomedical Research/Ludwig Boltzmann Research Institute of Cardiac Surgery, Vienna General Hospital, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

Manuscript received July 28, 1998; revised manuscript received January 5, 1999, accepted January 21, 1999.

Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Helmut Baumgartner, Department of Cardiology, Vienna General Hospital, University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, A-1090 Wien, Austria
hbaumgartner{at}pop3.kard.akh-wien.ac.at

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.

Abbreviations and Acronyms
  SEE = Standard error of estimate




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg.Home page
A. Della Corte, C. Bancone, C. Quarto, G. Dialetto, F. E. Covino, M. Scardone, G. Caianiello, and M. Cotrufo
Predictors of ascending aortic dilatation with bicuspid aortic valve: a wide spectrum of disease expression
Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., March 1, 2007; 31(3): 397 - 405.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Diagnostic Medical SonographyHome page
F. E. Coon and C. Hanson
Discrepancies Between Echocardiographic Spectral Doppler and Catheterization Pressures
Journal of Diagnostic Medical Sonography, July 1, 2006; 22(4): 267 - 271.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
J Am Coll CardiolHome page
C. M. Otto
Valvular Aortic Stenosis: Disease Severity and Timing of Intervention
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., June 6, 2006; 47(11): 2141 - 2151.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Am Coll CardiolHome page
H. Baumgartner
Hemodynamic Assessment of Aortic Stenosis: Are There Still Lessons to Learn?
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., January 3, 2006; 47(1): 138 - 140.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Am Coll CardiolHome page
H. Baumgartner
Hemodynamic Assessment of Aortic Stenosis: Are There Still Lessons to Learn?
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., December 13, 2005; (2005) j.jacc.2005.10.001v1.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Anesth. Analg.Home page
R. A. Schroeder and J. B. Mark
Is the Valve OK or Not? Immediate Evaluation of a Replaced Aortic Valve
Anesth. Analg., November 1, 2005; 101(5): 1288 - 1291.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Am Coll CardiolHome page
M. Briand, J. G. Dumesnil, L. Kadem, A. G. Tongue, R. Rieu, D. Garcia, and P. Pibarot
Reduced Systemic Arterial Compliance Impacts Significantly on Left Ventricular Afterload and Function in Aortic Stenosis: Implications for Diagnosis and Treatment
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., July 19, 2005; 46(2): 291 - 298.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
HeartHome page
L Kadem, J G Dumesnil, R Rieu, L-G Durand, D Garcia, and P Pibarot
Impact of systemic hypertension on the assessment of aortic stenosis
Heart, March 1, 2005; 91(3): 354 - 361.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Physiol. Heart Circ. Physiol.Home page
K. E. Richards, D. Deserranno, E. Donal, N. L. Greenberg, J. D. Thomas, and M. J. Garcia
Influence of structural geometry on the severity of bicuspid aortic stenosis
Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol, September 1, 2004; 287(3): H1410 - H1416.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
CirculationHome page
J. Bermejo, J. L. Rojo-Alvarez, J. C. Antoranz, M. Abel, I. G. Burwash, R. Yotti, M. Moreno, M. A. Garcia-Fernandez, K. G. Lehmann, and C. M. Otto
Estimation of the End of Ejection in Aortic Stenosis: An Unreported Source of Error in the Invasive Assessment of Severity
Circulation, August 31, 2004; 110(9): 1114 - 1120.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Am Coll CardiolHome page
D. Garcia, J. G. Dumesnil, L.-G. Durand, L. Kadem, and P. Pibarot
Discrepancies between catheter and Doppler estimates of valve effective orifice area can be predicted from the pressure recovery phenomenon: practical implications with regard to quantification of aortic stenosis severity
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., February 5, 2003; 41(3): 435 - 442.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Am Coll CardiolHome page
R. A. Levine and E. Schwammenthal
Stenosis is in the eye of the observer: impact of pressure recovery on assessing aortic valve area
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., February 5, 2003; 41(3): 443 - 445.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Am Coll CardiolHome page
J. M. Oliver, A. Gonzalez, P. Gallego, A. Sanchez-Recalde, F. Benito, and J. M. Mesa
Discrete subaortic stenosis in adults: increased prevalence and slow rate of progression of the obstruction and aortic regurgitation
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., September 1, 2001; 38(3): 835 - 842.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Am Coll CardiolHome page
P. Pibarot and J. G. Dumesnil
Hemodynamic and clinical impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch in the aortic valve position and its prevention
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., October 1, 2000; 36(4): 1131 - 1141.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
CirculationHome page
D. Garcia, P. Pibarot, J. G. Dumesnil, F. Sakr, and L.-G. Durand
Assessment of Aortic Valve Stenosis Severity : A New Index Based on the Energy Loss Concept
Circulation, February 22, 2000; 101(7): 765 - 771.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Am Coll CardiolHome page
C. G. DeGroff, R. Shandas, and L. Valdes-Cruz
Pressure recovery and aortic stenosis
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., January 1, 2000; 35(1): 260 - 260.
[Full Text] [PDF]




HOME SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES CARDIOSOURCE SEARCH HELP FEEDBACK
Copyright © 1999 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.