Assessment of normal and abnormal prosthetic mitral valves by Doppler echocardiography

Doppler in prosthetic mitral valves
  • Gilbert Habib
  • Michel Benichou
  • Jean-Louis Bonnet
  • Philippe Jau
  • Jacques Bille
  • Pierre Djiane
  • Roger Luccioni


Pulsed, continuous-wave, and color Doppler were performed in 165 normal mitral prostheses and 58 patients with prosthetic dysfunction (46 regurgitant and 12 obstructive valves) proved by catheterization and/or surgery. Mean mitral gradient (MG) and pressure half-time (PHT) were determined in all cases.

Among normal prostheses, a wide range of both MG and PHT was observed in each type of valve and a considerable overlap between valves of different size. St-Jude's valve had the most optimal hemodynamics. Mild mitral insufficiency was detected in 14% of tissue and 24% of mechanical mitral valves.

Repeat studies were performed in 30 patients over a 2.4 years period. Nine patients developed Doppler evidence of new prosthetic dysfunction, while Doppler parameters remained unchanged in 21 patients during the follow-up period.

Among malfunctioning valves, Doppler correctly identified all cases of prosthetic obstruction (n=12), and 42 of 46 regurgitant valves.

We conclude that Doppler echocardiography is a very useful technique in both non-invasive assessment and follow-up of normal prosthetic valves in the mitral position and in detecting prosthetic dysfunction, especially when prosthetic obstruction is present.

Key words

doppler echocardiography prosthetic mitral valves malfunctioning mitral prostheses follow-up of mitral prostheses 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alam M, Lakier JB, Pichard SD, Goldstein S. Echocardiographic evaluation of porcine bioprosthetic valves: experience with 309 normal and 59 dysfunctioning valves. Am J Cardiol 1983; 52: 309–13.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lesbre JP, Isorni C, Lesperance J, et al. Les dysfonctions de bioprothèses. Apport respectif de l'échocardiographie et du Doppler. Arch Mal Coeur 1986; 9: 1278–86.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lesbre JP, Chassat C, Lesperance J, et al. Evaluation des nouvelles bioprothèses péricardiques par Doppler pulsé et continu. Arch Mal Coeur 1986; 10: 1439–48.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mintz GS, Ross JJ, Panidis I, Chandrasekaran K. Doppler ultrasound in 366 patients with prosthetic valves: a 4 year experience. (abstract) Circulation 1988; 78 (suppl. II): II-606.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gibbs JL, Wharton GA, Williams GJ. Doppler ultrasound of normally functioning mechanical mitral and aortic valve prostheses. Int J Cardiol 1988; 18: 391–8.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Simpson IA, Reece IJ, Houston AB, Hutton I, Wheatly DJ, Cobbe SM. 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; 56: 83–8.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Panidis IP, Ross J, Mintz GS. Normal and abnormal prosthetic valve function as assessed by Doppler echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 1986; 8: 317–26.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sagar KB, Wann S, Paulsen WHJ. Romhilt DW. Doppler echocardiographic evaluation of Hancock and Bjork-Shiley prosthetic valves. J Am Coll Cardiol 1986; 7: 681–7.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alam M, Rosman HS, Lakier JB, et al. Doppler and echocardiographic features of normal and dysfunctioning bioprosthetic valves. J Am Coll Cardiol 1987; 10: 851–8.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hatle L, Angelsen B. Pulsed and continuous wave Doppler in diagnosis and assessment of various heart lesions. In: Hatle L, Angelsen B. Doppler ultrasound in Cardiology. Physical principles and clinical applications, 2d, Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia, 1985: 117–9.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Abbasi AS, Allen MW, De Cristofaro D, Ungar I. Detection and estimation of the degree of mitral regurgitation by range-gated pulsed Doppler echocardiography Circulation 1980; 61: 143–7.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Miyatake KK, Izumi S, Okamoto M, et al. Semiquantitative grading of severity of mitral regurgitation by real-time two-dimensional Doppler flow imaging technique. J Am Coll Cardiol 1986; 7: 82–8.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hatle L, Angelsen B. Doppler ultrasound in cardiology. Physical principles and clinical applications, 2nd, Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia, 1985: 178–87.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sellers R, Levy M, Amplatz K, Lillemei C. Left retrograde cardio angiography in acquired cardiac disease. Technic, indications, interpretations in 700 cases. Am J Cardiol 1964; 14: 437–47.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fawzy ME, Halim M, Ziady G, Mercer E, Phillips R, Andaya W. Hemodynamic evaluation of porcine bioprotheses in the mitral position by Doppler echocardiography. Am J Cardiol 1987; 59: 643–6.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Burstow DJ, Nishimura RA, Tajik AJ, Reeder GS, Hurley DV, Holmes DR. Correlation of Doppler-derived gradients across prosthetic valves with cardiac catheterization: A simultaneous Doppler-dual catheter study (abstract). Circulation 1988; 78 (suppl II): II-607.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wilkins GT, Gillam LD, Kritzer GL, Levine RA, Palacios IF, Weyman AE. Validation of continuous-wave Doppler echocardiographic measurements of mitral and tricuspid prosthetic valve gradients: a simultaneous Doppler-catheter study. Circulation 1986; 74: 786–95.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Williams GA, Labovitz AJ. Doppler hemodynamic evaluation of prosthetic (Starr-Edwards and Bjork-Shiley) and bioprosthetic (Hancock and Carpentier-Edwards) cardiac valves. Am J Cardiol 1985; 56: 325–32.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chaitman BR, Bonan R, Lepage G, et al. Hemodynamic evaluation of the Carpentier-Edwards porcine xenograft. Circulation 1979; 60: 1170–82.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shukri FK, Folland ED, Sethi GK, et al. Six months post operative hemodynamics of the Hancock heterograft and the Bjork-Shiley prosthesis: results of a Veterans Administration Cooperative prospective randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 1988; 12: 8–18.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Horstkotte D, Haerten K, Herzer JA, Seipel L, Bricks W, Loogen F. Preliminary results in mitral valve replacement with the St-Jude medical prosthesis: comparison with the Bjork-Shiley valve. Circulation 1981; 64 (suppl. II): 203–9.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chambers J, McLoughlin N, Rapson A, Jackson G. Effects of changes in heart rate on pressure half-time in normally functioning mitral valve prostheses. Br Heart J 1988; 60: 502–6.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moro E, Nicolosi GL, Zanuttini D, Cervesato E, Roelandt J. Indluence of aortic regurgitation on the assessment of the pressure half-time and derived mitral valve area in patients with mitral stenosis. Eur Heart J 1988; 9: 1010–7.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Karp KK, Teien D, Bjerle P, Eriksson P. Reassessment of valve area determinations in mitral stenosis by the pressure half-time method: impact of left ventricular stiffness and peak diastolic pressure difference. J Am Coll Cardiol 1989; 13: 594–9.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Olmstead SF, Pearlman AS, Janko CL. Identification of prosthetic mitral valve dysfunction: utility of Doppler parameters (abstract). Circulation 1986; 74 (suppl. II): II-390.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sprecher DL, Adamick R, Adams D, Kisslo J. In vitro color flow, pulsed and continuous wave Doppler ultrasound masking of flow by prosthetic valves. J Am Coll Cardiol 1987; 9: 1306–10.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Taams MA, Cussenhoven EJ, Cahalan MK, et al. Transoesophageal Doppler color flow imaging in the detection of native and Bjork-Shiley mitral valve regurgitation. J Am Coll Cardiol 1989; 13: 95–9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gilbert Habib
    • 1
  • Michel Benichou
    • 1
  • Jean-Louis Bonnet
    • 1
  • Philippe Jau
    • 1
  • Jacques Bille
    • 1
  • Pierre Djiane
    • 1
  • Roger Luccioni
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of CardiologyLA TIMONE HospitalMarseilleFrance

Personalised recommendations