Blog
About

21
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Early Doppler-echocardiography evaluation of Carpentier-Edwards Standard and Carpentier-Edwards Magna aortic prosthetic valve: comparison of hemodynamic performance

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          This study was designed to describe Doppler-echocardiography values of Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Standard (CEPS) and Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna (CEPM) aortic prosthetic valves, evaluated by a single, experienced echo-laboratory, early in the postoperative phase.

          Methods

          Three-hundred-seventy-seven consecutive patients, who had had a CEPS or a CEPM implanted in our Hospital due to aortic stenosis and/or insufficiency, underwent baseline Doppler echocardiography evaluation within 7 days after surgery. Hemodynamic performances of CEPS and CEPM were accurately described, evaluating flow-dependent (transprosthetic velocities and gradients) and flow-independent (effective orifice area, indexed effective orifice area and Doppler velocity index) Doppler-echocardiography parameters.

          Results

          Out of the 377 patients 48.8% were men (n = 184), mean age was 74.63 ± 6.77 years, mean BSA was 1.78 ± 0.18 m2, mean ejection fraction was 57.78 ± 8%. Two-hundred and sixty two CEPS and 115 CEPM were implanted. Comparing size-by-size CEPS with CEPM, both prostheses showed a good hemodynamic profile, with fairly similar values of pressure gradients (PGmax and mean, in mmHg, = 37,18 ± 11.57 and 20.81 ± 7.44 in CEPS n°19 compared to 32,47 ± 7,76 and 17,67 ± 4.63 in CEPM n°19 and progressively lower in higher sized prostheses, having PGmax and mean 15 ± 3,16 and 9.15 ± 1,29 in CEPS n°29 compared to 15,67 ± 1,53 and 9 ± 1 in CEPM n°29) and EOAi (being 0,65 ± 0,33 cm²/m² in CEPS n°19 compared to 0,77 ± 0,29 cm²/m² in CEPM n°19 and progressively higher in higher sized prostheses, being 1,28 ± 0,59 cm²/m² in CEPS n°29 compared to 1,07 ± 0,18 cm²/m² in CEPM n°29), the latter resulting, however, basically less flow obstructive.

          Conclusions

          Our data confirm the good hemodynamic performance of both aortic bioprostheses and the more favourable hemodynamic profile of CEPM compared to CEPS, pointing out the need to perform routinely an accurate baseline Doppler-echocardiography evaluation early after surgery to allow an adequate interpretation of data at follow-up.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Hemodynamic and clinical impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch in the aortic valve position and its prevention.

          Prosthesis-patient mismatch is present when the effective orifice area of the inserted prosthetic valve is less than that of a normal human valve. This is a frequent problem in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement, and its main hemodynamic consequence is the generation of high transvalvular gradients through normally functioning prosthetic valves. The purposes of this report are to present an update on the concept of aortic prosthesis-patient mismatch and to review the present knowledge with regard to its impact on hemodynamic status, functional capacity, morbidity and mortality. Also, we propose a simple approach for the prevention and clinical management of this phenomenon because it can be largely avoided if certain simple factors are taken into consideration before the operation.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on long-term survival after aortic valve replacement: influence of age, obesity, and left ventricular dysfunction.

            This study was designed to evaluate the effect of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) on late survival after aortic valve replacement (AVR) and to determine if this effect is modulated by patient age, body mass index (BMI), and pre-operative left ventricular (LV) function. We recently reported that PPM is an independent predictor of operative mortality after AVR, particularly when associated with LV dysfunction. The indexed valve effective orifice area (EOA) was estimated in 2,576 patients having survived AVR and was used to define PPM as not clinically significant if it was >0.85 cm(2)/m(2), as moderate if >0.65 and < or =0.85 cm(2)/m(2), and severe if < or =0.65 cm(2)/m(2). After adjustment for other risk factors, severe PPM was associated with increased late overall mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.38; p = 0.03) and cardiovascular mortality (HR: 1.63; p = 0.0006) in the whole cohort. Severe PPM was also associated with increased overall mortality in patients <70 years old (HR: 1.77; p = 0.002) and in patients with a BMI <30 kg/m(2) (HR: 2.1; p = 0.006), but had no impact in older patients or in obese patients. Moderate PPM was a predictor of mortality in patients with LV ejection fraction <50% (HR: 1.21; p = 0.01), but not in patients with preserved LV function. Moderate PPM is associated with increased late mortality in patients with LV dysfunction, but with normal prognosis in those with preserved LV function. Notwithstanding the previously demonstrated deleterious effect of severe PPM on early mortality, this factor appears to increase late mortality only in patients <70 years old and/or with a BMI <30 kg/m(2) or an LV ejection fraction <50%.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Validation and applications of indexed aortic prosthetic valve areas calculated by Doppler echocardiography.

              Doppler echocardiographic evaluation of aortic valve prostheses is based on the use of variables heretofore validated mostly for native valves. Accordingly, this study examined the validity and relative usefulness of the Doppler valve gradient and area measurements in 31 patients (mean age 69 +/- 10 years) 20 +/- 4 months after implantation of a given type of aortic bioprosthesis ranging in size from 19 to 29 mm. Valve area data obtained with both the standard and simplified continuity equations were compared with known in vitro prosthetic valve area measurements and an excellent correlation was obtained between the standard and simplified continuity equations (r = 0.98, SEE +/- 0.07 cm2, p less than 0.0005) and between in vivo and known in vitro prosthetic valve areas (r = 0.86, SEE +/- 0.16 cm2, p less than 0.0005). Peak gradient ranged from 10.8 to 75.0 mm Hg (mean 35 +/- 16) and mean gradient from 7.6 to 43.7 mm Hg (mean 20.5 +/- 9.5). The correlations between prosthetic valve gradient and in vivo area were r = -0.53, SEE +/- 14 mm Hg and r = -0.49, SEE +/- 8.63 mm Hg for peak and mean gradient, respectively. These relations were improved by indexing valve area by body surface area. The best correlations were obtained between indexed valve area and a quadratic function of the gradient (r = -0.72, SEE +/- 11.72 mm Hg and r = -0.70, SEE +/- 7.28 mm Hg for peak and mean gradient, respectively), reflecting a curvilinear relation.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Cardiovasc Ultrasound
                Cardiovascular Ultrasound
                BioMed Central
                1476-7120
                2011
                24 November 2011
                : 9
                : 37
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Cardiovascular Science, "S. Camillo-Forlanini" Hospital, Rome, Italy
                [2 ]Department "Heart and Great Vessels Attilio Reale", Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
                Article
                1476-7120-9-37
                10.1186/1476-7120-9-37
                3251522
                22114985
                Copyright ©2011 Minardi et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                Categories
                Research

                Comments

                Comment on this article