What our eyes see is not necessarily what our heart feels.

Valvular pathology can be analyzed quickly and accurately through the use of Doppler ultrasound. For aortic stenosis, the continuity equation approach with Doppler velocity-time integral (VTI) data is by far the most commonly used clinical method of quantification. In view of the emerging popularity of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) as a routine clinical imaging tool, the purposes of this study were to define the reliability of velocity-encoded CMR as a routine method for quantifying stenotic aortic valve area, to compare this method with the accepted standard, and to evaluate its reproducibility. Patients (n=24) with aortic stenosis (ranging from 0.5 to 1.8 cm2) were imaged with CMR and echocardiography. Velocity-encoded CMR was used to obtain velocity information in the aorta and left ventricular outflow tract. From this flow data, pressure gradients were estimated by means of the modified Bernoulli equation, and VTIs were calculated to estimate aortic valve orifice dimensions by means of the continuity equation. The correlation coefficients between modalities for pressure gradients were r=0.83 for peak and r=0.87 for mean. The measurements of VTI correlated well, leading to an overall strong correlation between modalities for the estimation of valve dimension (r=0.83, by means of the identified best approach). For 5 patients, the CMR examination was repeated using the best approach. The repeat calculations of valve size correlated well (r=0.94). Velocity-encoded CMR can be used as a reliable, user-friendly tool to evaluate stenotic aortic valves. The measurements of pressure gradients, VTIs, and the valve dimension correlate well with the accepted standard of Doppler ultrasound.

In most patients, severity of valvular aortic stenosis can be accurately assessed non-invasively by echocardiography. However, retrograde catheterisation of the aortic valve is often undertaken. This procedure has a potential risk of neurological complications, with an unknown incidence of clinically silent embolism. We aimed to establish the frequency of clinically apparent and silent cerebral embolism after this procedure. We prospectively randomised 152 consecutive patients with valvular aortic stenosis at a German university hospital to receive either cardiac catheterisation with (n=101) or without (n=51) passage through the aortic valve. Patients underwent cranial MRI and neurological assessment within 48 h before and after the procedure to assess cerebral embolism. Controls were 32 patients without valvular aortic stenosis who underwent coronary angiography and laevocardiography. 22 of 101 patients (22%) who underwent retrograde catheterisation of the aortic valve had focal diffusion-imaging abnormalities in a pattern consistent with acute cerebral embolic events after the procedure; three of these patients (3%) had clinically apparent neurological deficits. By contrast, none of the patients without passage of the valve, or any of the controls, had evidence of cerebral embolism as assessed by MRI. Patients with valvular aortic stenosis who undergo retrograde catheterisation of the aortic valve have a substantial risk of clinically apparent cerebral embolism, and frequently have silent ischaemic brain lesions. Patients should be informed about these risks, and this procedure should be used only in patients with unclear echocardiographical findings when additional information is necessary for clinical management.

The effective orifice area (EOA) is the standard parameter for the clinical assessment of aortic stenosis severity. It has been reported that EOA measured by Doppler echocardiography does not necessarily provide an accurate estimate of the cross-sectional area of the flow jet at the vena contracta, especially at low flow rates. The objective of this study was to test the validity of the Doppler-derived EOA. Triangular and circular orifice plates, funnels, and bioprosthetic valves were inserted into an in vitro aortic flow model and were studied under different physiologic flow rates corresponding to cardiac outputs varying from 1.5 to 7 L/min. For each experiment, the EOA was measured by Doppler and compared with the catheter-derived EOA and with the EOA derived from a theoretic formula. In bioprostheses, the geometric orifice area (GOA) was estimated from images acquired by high-speed video recording. There was no significant difference between the EOA derived from the 3 methods with the rigid orifices (Doppler vs catheter: y = 0.97x +0.18 mm(2), r(2) = 0.98; Doppler vs theory: y = 1.00x -3.60 mm(2), r(2) = 0.99). Doppler EOA was not significantly influenced by the flow rate in rigid orifices. As predicted by theory, the average contraction coefficient (EOA/GOA) was around 0.6 in the orifice plates and around 1.0 in the funnels. In the bioprosthetic valves, both EOA and GOA increased with increasing flow rate whereas contraction coefficient was almost constant with an average value of 0.99. There was also a very good concordance between EOA and GOA (y = 0.94x +0.05 mm(2), r(2) = 0.88). In rigid aortic stenosis, the Doppler EOA is much less flow dependent than generally assumed. Indeed, it depends mainly on the GOA and the inflow shape (flat vs funnel-shaped) of the stenosis. The flow dependence of Doppler EOA observed in clinical studies is likely a result of a variation of the valve GOA or of the valve inflow shape and not an inherent flow dependence of the EOA derived by the continuity equation.