Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012 Aug;144(2):453-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2011.12.036. Epub 2012 Jan 20.
Pressure recovery results in Doppler gradients greater than catheter gradients and is well established in association with bileaflet mechanical aortic valves. Because pressure recovery is influenced by orifice geometry, it might manifest differently with various valve prostheses. If true, then the reliability of Doppler echocardiography for the estimation of aortic valve gradients might be different with different prostheses. The purpose of the present study was to test, in an in vitro setting, the degree to which pressure recovery results in Doppler overestimation of gradients for three commonly used aortic valve prostheses.
Carpentier Edwards Perimount, Medtronic Mosaic, and St. Jude Medical bileaflet prostheses were tested under various flow conditions in a pulsatile mock flow loop with a normal aorta size. Mean pressure gradient was assessed with transducers 1 cm and 10 cm distal to the valve and with Doppler echocardiography. Pressure recovery was defined as the difference between the Doppler gradient and a 10-cm gradient. The percentage of the maximum pressure gradient composed of pressure recovery and the percentage of pressure recovery complete 1 cm distal to the valve were calculated.
There was substantial pressure recovery for all valves in all flow states. Pressure recovery was responsible for 50% or more of the Doppler gradients for almost all conditions and was more than 70% complete within 1 cm for almost all conditions. Multivariate analysis found that flow and valve area (but not valve type) were predictors of pressure recovery; that flow was the major predictor of the percentage of Doppler gradient composed of pressure recovery (with minor contributions from the aorta size and prosthesis type); and that valve type and aorta size were the major predictors of the percentage of pressure recovery complete at 1 cm.
In an in vitro model with a normal aorta size, substantial pressure recovery occurred with all three aortic valve prostheses. Although statistically significant differences were found between valve types in the percentage of pressure recovery and percentage of pressure recovery complete at 1 cm, the differences were small and clinically unimportant. Clinically, among patients with an ascending aorta diameter less than 3.0 cm, Doppler echocardiography likely substantially overestimates aortic valve mean gradient, regardless of prosthesis type.
压力恢复会导致多普勒梯度大于导管梯度,并且与双叶机械主动脉瓣密切相关。由于压力恢复受到孔口几何形状的影响,因此它可能会在不同的瓣膜假体中表现不同。如果这是真的,那么多普勒超声心动图用于估计主动脉瓣梯度的可靠性可能会因不同的假体而有所不同。本研究的目的是在体外环境下,测试压力恢复对三种常用主动脉瓣假体的多普勒梯度高估的程度。
在具有正常主动脉大小的脉动模拟流环中,对 Carpentier Edwards Perimount、Medtronic Mosaic 和 St. Jude Medical 双叶瓣假体进行了各种流量条件下的测试。使用位于瓣膜 1 厘米和 10 厘米远的换能器以及多普勒超声心动图评估平均压力梯度。将多普勒梯度与 10 厘米梯度之间的差异定义为压力恢复。计算最大压力梯度中由压力恢复组成的百分比以及瓣膜 1 厘米远的压力恢复完全的百分比。
所有瓣膜在所有流量状态下都存在大量的压力恢复。对于几乎所有条件,压力恢复占多普勒梯度的 50%或更多,并且在几乎所有条件下,1 厘米内的压力恢复超过 70%完成。多变量分析发现,流量和瓣膜面积(但不是瓣膜类型)是压力恢复的预测因素;流量是压力恢复构成多普勒梯度百分比的主要预测因素(主动脉大小和假体类型的贡献较小);而瓣膜类型和主动脉大小是 1 厘米处压力恢复完全百分比的主要预测因素。
在具有正常主动脉大小的体外模型中,所有三种主动脉瓣假体都存在大量的压力恢复。尽管在瓣膜类型之间发现了压力恢复百分比和 1 厘米处压力恢复完全百分比的统计学显著差异,但差异较小,临床上无重要意义。临床上,对于升主动脉直径小于 3.0 厘米的患者,无论假体类型如何,多普勒超声心动图可能会大大高估主动脉瓣平均梯度。