Brogan W C, Lange R A, Hillis L D
Department of Internal Medicine (Cardiovascular Division), the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas 75235.
Am Heart J. 1992 Apr;123(4 Pt 1):948-53. doi: 10.1016/0002-8703(92)90701-v.
This study was done to assess the accuracy of various techniques of measuring the pressure gradient and valve area in patients with aortic stenosis (AS). In 18 patients with AS, the pressure gradient was quantitated from (1) simultaneous left ventricular and ascending aortic pressures (LV-AO), (2) nonsimultaneous LV-AO pullback, (3) LV and femoral arterial (FA) pressures unadjusted for the time delay of the FA tracing (LV-FA unadjusted), and (4) LV-FA adjusted for time delay. In comparison to simultaneous LV-AO, the pressure gradient was greater with LV-FA unadjusted and less with LV-FA adjusted for time delay (p less than 0.05). In nine patients with a mean gradient less than 35 mm Hg, the difference in valve area between simultaneous LV-AO and pullback averaged 0.17 +/- 0.10 cm2; between LV-AO and LV-FA unadjusted, the difference averaged 0.11 +/- 0.14 cm2; and between LV-AO and LV-FA adjusted, the difference averaged 0.52 +/- 0.36 cm2. These differences in valve area resulted in a discordant classification of the severity of AS in eight of the nine patients. Thus the use of an LV-AO pullback or an LV-FA gradient for assessing the severity of AS may yield inaccurate results, especially in patients with low (less than 35 mm Hg) gradients.
本研究旨在评估测量主动脉瓣狭窄(AS)患者压力阶差和瓣口面积的各种技术的准确性。对18例AS患者,通过以下方法定量压力阶差:(1)同步测量左心室和升主动脉压力(LV-AO);(2)非同步LV-AO回撤;(3)未校正股动脉(FA)压力曲线时间延迟的左心室和股动脉(LV-FA)压力;(4)校正时间延迟后的LV-FA压力。与同步LV-AO相比,未校正的LV-FA压力阶差更大,校正时间延迟后的LV-FA压力阶差更小(p<0.05)。在9例平均压力阶差小于35mmHg的患者中,同步LV-AO与回撤法测得的瓣口面积差异平均为0.17±0.10cm²;LV-AO与未校正的LV-FA之间的差异平均为0.11±0.14cm²;LV-AO与校正后的LV-FA之间的差异平均为0.52±0.36cm²。这些瓣口面积的差异导致9例患者中有8例AS严重程度分类不一致。因此,使用LV-AO回撤法或LV-FA压力阶差评估AS严重程度可能会得出不准确的结果,尤其是在压力阶差较低(小于35mmHg)的患者中。