Tavli T, Ammar A, Wong M
Section of Cardiology, Aegean University, Izmir, Turkey.
J Heart Valve Dis. 1993 May;2(3):253-6.
Quantitative Doppler echocardiography has become an established method for estimating aortic valve area in aortic stenosis, replacing cardiac catheterization as the confirmatory study. The technique is time consuming, especially when measuring the transaortic velocity, which is performed by convention. This is accomplished by interrogating multiple windows with a non-imaging probe to record the maximal velocity. To determine how the examination could be expedited, we prospectively compared aortic valve gradients measured by Pedof and duplex transducers.
One hundred eighty-two consecutive patients with native aortic valve disease, mechanical or bioprosthetic aortic valves were studied. Two technicians measured maximal transaortic valve velocities from apical, subcostal, right parasternal and suprasternal notch windows with a 2 MHz Pedof probe and from the apical window with a 3-3.5 MHz duplex probe using color flow to orient the continuous wave beam. Angle-corrected and non-angle-corrected signals were recorded. There were 109 comparisons read by two observers; intra- and inter-reader variations were 0.4% and 2.0%, respectively.
Duplex imaging velocity gradients were consistently smaller than Pedof non-imaging measurements with a mean +/- 1 standard deviation difference between peak velocities of 0.40 +/- 0.71 meters per second (m/s) for angle-corrected, and 0.76 +/- 0.68 for non-angle-corrected signals (both p < 0.001). Technician variability accounted for some of the difference (p < 0.02).
Although non-imaging and imaging methods share the apical window, the Pedof probe scans unlimited planes to locate the maximal aortic valve gradient, whereas the duplex probe is confined to the plane providing the optimal two-dimensional image. Therefore, Doppler echocardiographic estimations of aortic valve areas still require careful, time-intensive non-imaging recordings of transaortic velocities.
定量多普勒超声心动图已成为评估主动脉瓣狭窄时主动脉瓣面积的既定方法,取代了心导管检查作为确诊性研究。该技术耗时,尤其是在按照惯例测量经主动脉速度时。这是通过使用非成像探头询问多个窗口以记录最大速度来完成的。为了确定如何加快检查速度,我们前瞻性地比较了用Pedof探头和双平面探头测量的主动脉瓣压差。
对182例连续性患有天然主动脉瓣疾病、机械或生物人工主动脉瓣的患者进行了研究。两名技术人员使用2MHz的Pedof探头从心尖、肋下、右胸骨旁和胸骨上切迹窗口测量经主动脉瓣的最大速度,并使用彩色血流来定位连续波束,通过3 - 3.5MHz的双平面探头从心尖窗口进行测量。记录了角度校正和未校正角度的信号。由两名观察者对109组数据进行了判读;观察者内和观察者间的差异分别为0.4%和2.0%。
双平面成像速度压差始终小于Pedof非成像测量值,角度校正后的峰值速度平均差异为0.40±0.71米/秒(m/s),未校正角度信号的差异为0.76±0.68(两者p<0.001)。技术人员的差异占了部分差异(p<0.02)。
尽管非成像和成像方法都使用心尖窗口,但Pedof探头可扫描无限平面以定位最大主动脉瓣压差,而双平面探头局限于提供最佳二维图像的平面。因此,多普勒超声心动图对主动脉瓣面积的估计仍需要仔细、耗时的经主动脉速度非成像记录。