Advertisement

Click here for more guidelines.

 
 




CME Topic Collections Past Issues Search Current Issue Home
     

J Am Coll Cardiol, 1984; 4:1207-1212
© 1984 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 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 Folland, E.
Right arrow Articles by Carbone, C
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Folland, E.
Right arrow Articles by Carbone, C

Is peripheral arterial pressure a satisfactory substitute for ascending aortic pressure when measuring aortic valve gradients?

ED Folland, AF Parisi, and C Carbone

Substitution of peripheral arterial pressure for ascending aortic pressure is a common but poorly validated practice in the assessment of aortic valve gradients by catheterization. The accuracy of this practice was assessed by comparing the left ventricular-ascending aortic mean gradient in 26 cases of aortic stenosis with the left ventricular-femoral artery gradient, both with and without compensation for temporal delay in femoral artery pressure. Aligned left ventricular-femoral artery gradients (matching upstrokes to compensate for peripheral time delay) underestimated the left ventricular-ascending aortic gradient by 10 mm Hg (range 0 to -17). Unaltered simultaneous left ventricular-femoral artery gradients overestimated the left ventricular-ascending aortic gradient by an average of 9 mm Hg (range +1 to +18). For both peripheral techniques, the error was relatively constant throughout the range of aortic valve gradients. The most accurate estimate of both aortic valve gradient and area was obtained by averaging the gradients and areas derived from aligned and unaltered left ventricular-peripheral arterial simultaneous tracings. Although only occasionally critical for clinical decision-making, these errors may be overwhelming in certain types of research applications, such as comparisons of valve prosthesis gradients and serial evaluations of aortic stenosis. An additional source of error is a coexistent peripheral arterial gradient that was present in 21% of otherwise technically suitable patients in the screened study group.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
HeartHome page
C Kupfahl, M Honold, G Meinhardt, H Vogelsberg, A Wagner, H Mahrholdt, and U Sechtem
Evaluation of aortic stenosis by cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging: comparison with established routine clinical techniques
Heart, August 1, 2004; 90(8): 893 - 901.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ANGIOLOGYHome page
T.-M. Lee, S.-F. Su, M.-F. Chen, C.-S. Liau, and Y.-T. Lee
Percutaneous Transvenous Mitral Balloon Valvuloplasty Alone in Patients with Combined Aortic and Mitral Stenosis
Angiology, May 1, 1997; 48(5): 445 - 450.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
CirculationHome page
J. Bartunek, S. U. Sys, A. C. Rodrigues, E. Van Schuerbeeck, L. Mortier, and B. de Bruyne
Abnormal Systolic Intraventricular Flow Velocities After Valve Replacement for Aortic Stenosis : Mechanisms, Predictive Factors, and Prognostic Significance
Circulation, February 15, 1996; 93(4): 712 - 719.
[Abstract] [Full Text]



 
  CME Topic Collections Past Issues Search Current Issue Home

Advertisement