Skip to main content
NCBI home page
British Heart Journal logoLink to British Heart Journal
. 1990 Mar;63(3):189–194. doi: 10.1136/hrt.63.3.189

Limitations of Doppler ultrasound in the assessment of the function of prosthetic mitral valves.

J Chambers 1, G Jackson 1, D Jewitt 1
PMCID: PMC1024405  PMID: 2183860

Abstract

Pressure half time has been assumed to be a relatively flow-independent measure of orifice area, but it may also be influenced by atrial and ventricular factors. Pressure half time and peak left ventricular inflow velocity were measured by continuous wave Doppler ultrasound in 164 patients with normally functioning Carpentier-Edwards, Björk-Shiley, and Starr-Edwards mitral prostheses. Pressure half time was shorter in the Björk-Shiley than in the other value types and peak transmitral velocity was highest in the Starr-Edwards prostheses. These differences, however, were partly explained by coexistent differences in transmitral flow. Filling time accounted for 19% and stroke volume for 15% of the variance in pressure half time compared with only 5.6% for prosthetic design and 0.4% for annulus diameter when each of these variables was considered alone. The design of the prosthesis explained 18% of the variance in peak transmitral velocity, while cardiac output and annulus diameter did not contribute significantly. With Doppler ultrasound it is impossible to define reliable normal ranges for prosthetic function independently of atrial and ventricular function. Formulas for orifice area based on peak transmitral velocity and flow seem more likely to reflect the behaviour of normally functioning prostheses than those based on pressure half time.

Full text

PDF
189

Images in this article

190Image
on p.190

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Alam M., Lakier J. B., Pickard S. D., Goldstein S. Echocardiographic evaluation of porcine bioprosthetic valves: experience with 309 normal and 59 dysfunctioning valves. Am J Cardiol. 1983 Aug;52(3):309–315. doi: 10.1016/0002-9149(83)90129-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Alam M., Rosman H. S., Lakier J. B., Kemp S., Khaja F., Hautamaki K., Magilligan D. J., Jr, Stein P. D. Doppler and echocardiographic features of normal and dysfunctioning bioprosthetic valves. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1987 Oct;10(4):851–858. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(87)80280-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Chambers J. B., Cochrane T., Black M. M., Jackson G. The Gorlin formula validated against directly observed orifice area in porcine mitral bioprostheses. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1989 Feb;13(2):348–353. doi: 10.1016/0735-1097(89)90510-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Chambers J. B., Cochrane T., Black M. M., Jackson G. The effect of flow on Doppler estimates of bioprosthetic mitral valve function in vitro. Cardiovasc Res. 1989 Dec;23(12):1007–1014. doi: 10.1093/cvr/23.12.1007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Chambers J., McLoughlin N., Rapson A., Jackson G. Effect of changes in heart rate on pressure half time in normally functioning mitral valve prostheses. Br Heart J. 1988 Dec;60(6):502–506. doi: 10.1136/hrt.60.6.502. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cooper D. M., Stewart W. J., Schiavone W. A., Lombardo H. P., Lytle B. W., Loop F. D., Salcedo E. E. Evaluation of normal prosthetic valve function by Doppler echocardiography. Am Heart J. 1987 Sep;114(3):576–582. doi: 10.1016/0002-8703(87)90755-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Fawzy M. E., Halim M., Ziady G., Mercer E., Phillips R., Andaya W. Hemodynamic evaluation of porcine bioprostheses in the mitral position by Doppler echocardiography. Am J Cardiol. 1987 Mar 1;59(6):643–646. doi: 10.1016/0002-9149(87)91185-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Gabbay S., McQueen D. M., Yellin E. L., Becker R. M., Frater R. W. In vitro hydrodynamic comparison of mitral valve prostheses at high flow rates. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1978 Dec;76(6):771–787. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Gabbay S., McQueen D. M., Yellin E. L., Frater R. W. In vitro hydrodynamic comparison of mitral valve bioprostheses. Circulation. 1979 Aug;60(2 Pt 2):62–70. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.60.2.62. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Gibbs J. L., Wharton G. A., Williams G. J. Doppler echocardiographic characteristics of the Carpentier-Edwards xenograft. Eur Heart J. 1986 Apr;7(4):353–356. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.eurheartj.a062073. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Gibbs J. L., Wharton G. A., Williams G. J. Doppler ultrasound of normally functioning mechanical mitral and aortic valve prostheses. Int J Cardiol. 1988 Mar;18(3):391–398. doi: 10.1016/0167-5273(88)90057-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Grayburn P. A., Smith M. D., Gurley J. C., Booth D. C., DeMaria A. N. Effect of aortic regurgitation on the assessment of mitral valve orifice area by Doppler pressure half-time in mitral stenosis. Am J Cardiol. 1987 Aug 1;60(4):322–326. doi: 10.1016/0002-9149(87)90235-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Grossman W., McLaurin L. P. Diastolic properties of the left ventricle. Ann Intern Med. 1976 Mar;84(3):316–326. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-84-3-316. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Hatle L., Angelsen B., Tromsdal A. Noninvasive assessment of atrioventricular pressure half-time by Doppler ultrasound. Circulation. 1979 Nov;60(5):1096–1104. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.60.5.1096. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Helmcke F., Nanda N. C., Hsiung M. C., Soto B., Adey C. K., Goyal R. G., Gatewood R. P., Jr Color Doppler assessment of mitral regurgitation with orthogonal planes. Circulation. 1987 Jan;75(1):175–183. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.75.1.175. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Holen J., Hìe J., Semb B. Obstructic characteristics of Björk-Shiley, Hancock, and Lillehei-Kaster prosthetic mitral valves in the immediate postoperative period. Acta Med Scand. 1978;204(1-2):5–10. doi: 10.1111/j.0954-6820.1978.tb08389.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Kennedy J. W., Trenholme S. E., Kasser I. S. Left ventricular volume and mass from single-plane cineangiocardiogram. A comparison of anteroposterior and right anterior oblique methods. Am Heart J. 1970 Sep;80(3):343–352. doi: 10.1016/0002-8703(70)90099-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Libanoff A. J., Rodbard S. Atrioventricular pressure half-time. Measure of mitral valve orifice area. Circulation. 1968 Jul;38(1):144–150. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.38.1.144. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Loyd D., Ask P., Wranne B. Pressure half-time does not always predict mitral valve area correctly. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 1988 Sep-Oct;1(5):313–321. doi: 10.1016/s0894-7317(88)80005-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. MORROW A. G., BRAUNWALD E., HALLER J. A., SHARP E. H. Left atrial pressure pulse in mitral valve disease; a correlation of pressures obtained by transbronchial puncture with the valvular lesion. Circulation. 1957 Sep;16(3):399–405. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.16.3.399. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Nakatani S., Masuyama T., Kodama K., Kitabatake A., Fujii K., Kamada T. Value and limitations of Doppler echocardiography in the quantification of stenotic mitral valve area: comparison of the pressure half-time and the continuity equation methods. Circulation. 1988 Jan;77(1):78–85. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.77.1.78. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Noble M. I., Milne E. N., Goerke R. J., Carlsson E., Domenech R. J., Saunders K. B., Hoffman J. I. Left ventricular filling and diastolic pressure-volume relations in the conscious dog. Circ Res. 1969 Feb;24(2):269–283. doi: 10.1161/01.res.24.2.269. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Panidis I. P., Ross J., Mintz G. S. Normal and abnormal prosthetic valve function as assessed by Doppler echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1986 Aug;8(2):317–326. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(86)80046-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Requarth J. A., Goldberg S. J., Vasko S. D., Allen H. D. In vitro verification of Doppler prediction of transvalve pressure gradient and orifice area in stenosis. Am J Cardiol. 1984 May 1;53(9):1369–1373. doi: 10.1016/0002-9149(84)90096-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Ross J., Jr, Linhart J. W., Brauwald E. Effects of changing heart rate in man by electrical stimulation of the right atrium. studies at rest, during exercise, and with isoproterenol. Circulation. 1965 Oct;32(4):549–558. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.32.4.549. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Ryan T., Armstrong W. F., Dillon J. C., Feigenbaum H. Doppler echocardiographic evaluation of patients with porcine mitral valves. Am Heart J. 1986 Feb;111(2):237–244. doi: 10.1016/0002-8703(86)90134-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Sagar K. B., Wann L. S., Paulsen W. H., Romhilt D. W. Doppler echocardiographic evaluation of Hancock and Björk-Shiley prosthetic values. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1986 Mar;7(3):681–687. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(86)80480-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Simpson I. A., Reece I. J., Houston A. B., Hutton I., Wheatley D. J., Cobbe S. M. Non-invasive assessment by Doppler ultrasound of 155 patients with bioprosthetic valves: a comparison of the Wessex porcine, low profile Ionescu-Shiley, and Hancock pericardial bioprostheses. Br Heart J. 1986 Jul;56(1):83–88. doi: 10.1136/hrt.56.1.83. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Teichholz L. E., Kreulen T., Herman M. V., Gorlin R. Problems in echocardiographic volume determinations: echocardiographic-angiographic correlations in the presence of absence of asynergy. Am J Cardiol. 1976 Jan;37(1):7–11. doi: 10.1016/0002-9149(76)90491-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Thomas J. D., Weyman A. E. Doppler mitral pressure half-time: a clinical tool in search of theoretical justification. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1987 Oct;10(4):923–929. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(87)80290-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Walker D. K., Scotten L. N., Modi V. J., Brownlee R. T. In vitro assessment of mitral valve prostheses. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1980 May;79(5):680–688. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Weinstein I. R., Marbarger J. P., Pérez J. E. Ultrasonic assessment of the St. Jude prosthetic valve: M mode, two-dimensional, and Doppler echocardiography. Circulation. 1983 Nov;68(5):897–905. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.68.5.897. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Williams G. A., Labovitz A. J. Doppler hemodynamic evaluation of prosthetic (Starr-Edwards and Björk-Shiley) and bioprosthetic (Hancock and Carpentier-Edwards) cardiac valves. Am J Cardiol. 1985 Aug 1;56(4):325–332. doi: 10.1016/0002-9149(85)90858-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from British Heart Journal are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES