Методы эхокардиографической оценки гемодинамики аортального клапана после протезирования: методы и предостережения
Download
Клиническая кардиология: диагностика и лечение / Под ред. Л. А. Бокерия, Е. З. Голуховой. В 3 т. Т. 1. М.: НЦССХ им. А. Н. Бакулева РАМН, 2011. С. 342.
Baumgartner H., Khan S., DeRobertis M. et al. Discrepancies between Doppler and catheter gradients in aortic prosthetic valves in vitro. A manifestation of localized gradients and pressure recovery // Circulation. 1990. Vol. 82, № 4. P. 1467-1475.
Baumgartner H., Stefenelli T., Niederberger J. et al.
Bonow R. O., Carabello B. A., Kanu C. et al. ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (writing committee to revise the 1998 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease): developed in collaboration with the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists: endorsed by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons // Circulation. 2006. Vol. 114, № 5. P. e84-231.
Burstow D. J., Nishimura R. A., Bailey K. R. et al. Continuous wave Doppler echocardiographic measurement of prosthetic valve gradients. A simultaneous Doppler-catheter correlative study // Circulation. 1989. Vol. 80, № 3. P. 504-514.
Currie P. J., Seward J. B., Reeder G. S. et al. Continuous-wave Doppler echocardiographic assessment of severity of calcific aortic stenosis: a simultaneous Doppler-catheter correlative study in 100 adult patients // Circulation. 1985. Vol. 71, № 6. P. 1162-1169.
Garcia D., Dumesnil J. G., Durand L. G. et al. Discrepancies between catheter and Doppler estimates of valve effective orifice area can be predicted from the pressure recovery phenomenon: practical implications with regard to quantification of aortic stenosis severity // J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2003. Vol. 41, № 3. P. 435-442.
Garcia D., Pibarot P., Dumesnil J. G. et al. Assessment of aortic valve stenosis severity: a new index based on the energy loss concept // Circulation. 2000. Vol. 101, № 7. P. 765-771.
Hatle L., Angelsen B. A., Tromsdal A. Non-invasive assessment of aortic stenosis by Doppler ultrasound // Br. Heart J. 1980. Vol. 43, № 3. P. 284-292.
Hegrenaes L., Hatle L. Aortic stenosis in adults. Non-invasive estimation of pressure differences by continuous wave Doppler echocardiography // Br. Heart J. 1985. Vol. 54, № 4. P. 396-404.
Kadem L., Dumesnil J. G., Rieu R. et al. Impact of systemic hypertension on the assessment of aortic stenosis // Heart. 2005. Vol. 91, № 3. P. 354-361.
Monin J. L., Quere J. P., Monchi M. et al. Low-gradient aortic stenosis: operative risk stratification and predictors for long-term outcome: a multicenter study using dobutamine stress hemodynamics // Circulation. 2003. Vol. 108, № 3. P. 319-324.
Niederberger J., Schima H., Maurer G. et al. Importance of pressure recovery for the assessment of aortic stenosis by Doppler ultrasound. Role of aortic size, aortic valve area, and direction of the stenotic jet in vitro // Circulation. 1996. Vol. 94, №8. P. 1934-1940.
Quinones M. A., Otto C. M., Stoddard M. et al. Recommendations for quantification of Doppler echocardiography: a report from the Doppler Quantification Task Force of the Nomenclature and Standards Committee of the American Society of Echocardiography // J. Am. Soc. Echocardiogr. 2002. Vol. 15, № 2. P. 167-184.
Vahanian A., Baumgartner H., Bax J. et al. Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease: The Task Force on the Management of Valvular Heart Disease of the European Society of Cardiology // Eur. Heart J. 2007. Vol. 28, № 2. P. 230-268
Zoghbi W. A., Chambers J. B., Dumesnil J. G. et al. Recommendations for evaluation of prosthetic valves with echocardiography and doppler ultrasound: a report From the American Society of Echocardiography's Guidelines and Standards Committee and the Task Force on Prosthetic Valves, developed in conjunction with the American College of Cardiology Cardiovascular Imaging Committee, Cardiac Imaging Committee of the American Heart Association, the European Association of Echocardiography, a registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology, the Japanese Society of Echocardiography and the Canadian Society of Echocardiography, endorsed by the American College of Cardiology Foundation, American Heart Association, European Association of Echocardiography, a registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology, the Japanese Society of Echocardiography, and Canadian Society of Echocardiography // J. Am. Soc. Echocardiogr. 2009. Vol. 22, № 9. P. 975-1014; quiz 1082-1084.
Abstract
Echocardiography is a standard method for assessing hemodynamic after aortic valve replacement. Echocardiography includes the measurement of the mean and peak gradient, the effective orifice area, the geometric orifice area, and the energy loss coefficient. High gradients after aortic valve replacement may be, but not necessarily caused by the left ventricle outflow tract obstruction, but not always left ventricular outflow obstruction due to dysfunction of the prosthesis. Understanding the methods of noninvasive assessment of the anatomy, function and hemodynamics of aortic valve may help to determine the genesis of the high gradient on the aortic valve. This review summarizes advantages and disadvantages of the various echocardiographic techniques for assessing hemodynamics of aortic prosthesis.References
Бокерия Л. А., Голухова Е. З., Шанаурина Н. В. Недостаточность клапанов сердца: ультразвуковая диагностика. М.: НЦССХ им. А. Н. Бакулева РАМН, 2008.Клиническая кардиология: диагностика и лечение / Под ред. Л. А. Бокерия, Е. З. Голуховой. В 3 т. Т. 1. М.: НЦССХ им. А. Н. Бакулева РАМН, 2011. С. 342.
Baumgartner H., Khan S., DeRobertis M. et al. Discrepancies between Doppler and catheter gradients in aortic prosthetic valves in vitro. A manifestation of localized gradients and pressure recovery // Circulation. 1990. Vol. 82, № 4. P. 1467-1475.
Baumgartner H., Stefenelli T., Niederberger J. et al.
Bonow R. O., Carabello B. A., Kanu C. et al. ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (writing committee to revise the 1998 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease): developed in collaboration with the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists: endorsed by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons // Circulation. 2006. Vol. 114, № 5. P. e84-231.
Burstow D. J., Nishimura R. A., Bailey K. R. et al. Continuous wave Doppler echocardiographic measurement of prosthetic valve gradients. A simultaneous Doppler-catheter correlative study // Circulation. 1989. Vol. 80, № 3. P. 504-514.
Currie P. J., Seward J. B., Reeder G. S. et al. Continuous-wave Doppler echocardiographic assessment of severity of calcific aortic stenosis: a simultaneous Doppler-catheter correlative study in 100 adult patients // Circulation. 1985. Vol. 71, № 6. P. 1162-1169.
Garcia D., Dumesnil J. G., Durand L. G. et al. Discrepancies between catheter and Doppler estimates of valve effective orifice area can be predicted from the pressure recovery phenomenon: practical implications with regard to quantification of aortic stenosis severity // J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2003. Vol. 41, № 3. P. 435-442.
Garcia D., Pibarot P., Dumesnil J. G. et al. Assessment of aortic valve stenosis severity: a new index based on the energy loss concept // Circulation. 2000. Vol. 101, № 7. P. 765-771.
Hatle L., Angelsen B. A., Tromsdal A. Non-invasive assessment of aortic stenosis by Doppler ultrasound // Br. Heart J. 1980. Vol. 43, № 3. P. 284-292.
Hegrenaes L., Hatle L. Aortic stenosis in adults. Non-invasive estimation of pressure differences by continuous wave Doppler echocardiography // Br. Heart J. 1985. Vol. 54, № 4. P. 396-404.
Kadem L., Dumesnil J. G., Rieu R. et al. Impact of systemic hypertension on the assessment of aortic stenosis // Heart. 2005. Vol. 91, № 3. P. 354-361.
Monin J. L., Quere J. P., Monchi M. et al. Low-gradient aortic stenosis: operative risk stratification and predictors for long-term outcome: a multicenter study using dobutamine stress hemodynamics // Circulation. 2003. Vol. 108, № 3. P. 319-324.
Niederberger J., Schima H., Maurer G. et al. Importance of pressure recovery for the assessment of aortic stenosis by Doppler ultrasound. Role of aortic size, aortic valve area, and direction of the stenotic jet in vitro // Circulation. 1996. Vol. 94, №8. P. 1934-1940.
Quinones M. A., Otto C. M., Stoddard M. et al. Recommendations for quantification of Doppler echocardiography: a report from the Doppler Quantification Task Force of the Nomenclature and Standards Committee of the American Society of Echocardiography // J. Am. Soc. Echocardiogr. 2002. Vol. 15, № 2. P. 167-184.
Vahanian A., Baumgartner H., Bax J. et al. Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease: The Task Force on the Management of Valvular Heart Disease of the European Society of Cardiology // Eur. Heart J. 2007. Vol. 28, № 2. P. 230-268
Zoghbi W. A., Chambers J. B., Dumesnil J. G. et al. Recommendations for evaluation of prosthetic valves with echocardiography and doppler ultrasound: a report From the American Society of Echocardiography's Guidelines and Standards Committee and the Task Force on Prosthetic Valves, developed in conjunction with the American College of Cardiology Cardiovascular Imaging Committee, Cardiac Imaging Committee of the American Heart Association, the European Association of Echocardiography, a registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology, the Japanese Society of Echocardiography and the Canadian Society of Echocardiography, endorsed by the American College of Cardiology Foundation, American Heart Association, European Association of Echocardiography, a registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology, the Japanese Society of Echocardiography, and Canadian Society of Echocardiography // J. Am. Soc. Echocardiogr. 2009. Vol. 22, № 9. P. 975-1014; quiz 1082-1084.
