Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Pressure Recovery in Pediatric Aortic Valve Stenosis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Pediatric Cardiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study was designed to evaluate the phenomenon of pressure recovery in pediatric patients with aortic stenosis and also to evaluate how observed differences between catheter and Doppler gradients can be predicted by Doppler echocardiography. Doppler measurements of aortic valve stenosis gradients are known to overestimate observed gradients in the catheterization laboratory. Pressure recovery has been shown to be a contributing factor to this discrepancy. However, the clinical relevance of correcting Doppler gradients using the pressure recovery equation has not been evaluated in the pediatric population. Simultaneously obtained catheter and Doppler gradients were studied in 14 patients (range, 0.03–18 years; mean, 4.1 years) with aortic valve stenosis. A total of 23 data points were measured because 9 patients underwent balloon valvuloplasty and had both a pre- and a post-balloon valvuloplasty data point in the study. The catheter gradients were then compared to peak, mean, and pressure recovery corrected Doppler gradients. Pressure recovery was calculated using a previously validated equation. As expected, measured echocardiographic continuous-wave peak Doppler gradients overestimated the observed catheter gradients (range, 16–93 mmHg; mean, 43 mmHg). The continuous-wave peak Doppler gradients, mean, and pressure recovery adjusted gradients were equally as good in correlating the observed catheter gradients to those obtained by Doppler echocardiography (r = 0.92). However, pressure recovery corrected Doppler gradients were in better agreement with catheter gradients than echocardiographic mean or peak Doppler gradients (95% limit of agreement: −9 to 19 mmHg for pressure recovery corrected gradients, −30 to 11 mmHg for mean Doppler gradients, and 2–83 mmHg for peak Doppler gradients). Measured continuous-wave peak Doppler gradients consistently overestimated catheter gradients. The noted differences may be predicted using the pressure recovery equation. Pressure recovery is a significant factor in children with aortic valve stenosis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. H Baumgartner S Khan M DeRobertis L Czer G Maurer (1990) ArticleTitleDiscrepancies between Doppler and catheter gradients in aortic prosthetic valves in vitro: a manifestation of localized gradients and pressure recovery. Circulation 82 1467–1475 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:By%2BA1c7ptVc%3D Occurrence Handle2401075

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. H Baumgartner H Schima G Tulzer P Kühn (1993) ArticleTitleEffect of stenosis geometry on the Doppler–catheter gradient relation in vitro: manifestation of pressure recovery. J Am Coll Cardiol 21 1018–1025 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByyC1MrhvVQ%3D Occurrence Handle8450150

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. H Baumgartner T Stefenelli J Niederberger H Schima G Maurer (1999) ArticleTitle“Overestimation” of catheter gradients by Doppler ultrasound in patients with aortic stenosis: a predictable manifestation of pressure recovery. J Am Coll Cardiol 6 1655–1661 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0735-1097(99)00066-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. JM Bland DG Altman (1986) ArticleTitleStatistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurements. Lancet 1 307–311 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:BimC3MjhvFc%3D Occurrence Handle2868172

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. E Cape M Jones I Yamada M Van Auker L Valdes-Cruz (1996) ArticleTitleTurbulent/viscous interactions control Doppler/catheter pressure discrepancies in aortic stenosis: the role of the Reynolds number. Circulation 94 2975–2981 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByiD1MnhtVE%3D Occurrence Handle8941129

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. C Clark (1976) ArticleTitleThe fluid mechanics of aortic stenosis: I. Theory and steady flow experiments. J Biomech 9 521–528 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:CSmB28%2FivVY%3D Occurrence Handle956195

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. C Clark (1976) ArticleTitleThe fluid mechanics of aortic stenosis: II. Unsteady flow experiments. J Biomech 9 567–573 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:CSiD3cnitFY%3D Occurrence Handle965422

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. P Currie J Seward G. Reeder et al. (1985) ArticleTitleContinuous-wave Doppler echocardiographic assessment of severity of calcific aortic stenosis: a simultaneous Doppler–catheter correlative study in 100 adult patients. Circulation 71 1162–1169 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:BiqB3c3itlc%3D Occurrence Handle3995710

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. HP Gutgesell M French (1991) ArticleTitleEchocardiographic determination of aortic and pulmonary valve areas in subjects with normal hearts. Am J Cardiol 68 773–776 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:By6A28fnt10%3D Occurrence Handle1892085

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. RS Heinrich AA Fontaine RY Grimes et al. (1996) ArticleTitleExperimental analysis of fluid mechanical energy losses in aortic valve stenosis: importance of pressure recovery. Ann Biomed Eng 24 685–694 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByiD1c3nsFY%3D Occurrence Handle8923988

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. W Laskey W Kussmaul (1994) ArticleTitlePressure recovery in aortic valve stenosis. Circulation 89 116–121 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByuC3cbgtVc%3D Occurrence Handle8281636

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. MS Lemler LM Valdes-Cruz RS Shandas EG Cape (.) ArticleTitleInsights into catheter/Doppler discrepancies in congenital aortic stenosis. Am J Cardiol 83 1447–1450

    Google Scholar 

  13. R Levine A Jimoh E Cape et al. (1989) ArticleTitlePressure recovery distal to a stenosis: potential cause of gradient “overestimation” by Doppler echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 13 706–715 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:BiaC2c%2FgvFA%3D Occurrence Handle2918177

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. VC Lima E Zahn C Houche et al. (2000) ArticleTitleNon-invasive determination of the systolic peak to peak gradient in children with aortic stenosis: validation of a mathematical model. Cardiol Young 2 115–119

    Google Scholar 

  15. J Neiderberger H Schima G Maurer H Baumgartner (1996) ArticleTitleImportance 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 94 1934–1940 Occurrence Handle8873671

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. J Ohlsson B Wranne (1986) ArticleTitleNoninvasive assessment of valve area in patients with aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 7 501–508 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:BimC2c7ivFU%3D Occurrence Handle3950229

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. WA Schöbel W Voelker KK Haase KR Karsch (1999) ArticleTitleExtent, determinants and clinical importance of pressure recovery in patients with aortic valve stenosis. Eur Heart J 20 1355–1363 Occurrence Handle10.1053/euhj.1998.1479 Occurrence Handle10462470

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. HW Sung PS Yu CH Hsu JC Hsu (1997) ArticleTitleCan cardiac catheterization accurately assess the severity of aortic stenosis? An in vitro pulsatile flow study. Ann Biomed Eng 25 896–905 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByiH2crit10%3D Occurrence Handle9300114

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. W Voelker H Reul T Stelzer A Schmidt K Karsch (1992) ArticleTitlePressure recovery in aortic stenosis: an in vitro study in a pulsatile flow model. J Am Coll Cardiol 20 1585–1593 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByyD1crgs10%3D Occurrence Handle1452933

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the catheterization and echocardiography laboratory staff, especially Mrs. Joellyn Gurczynski, for their help in the acquisition of data and cooperation throughout the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pediatrics, Division of Cardiology, Wayne State University School of Medicine/Detroit Medical Center and Children’s Hospital of Michigan, 3901 Beaubien Avenue, Detroit, MI 48201, USA

    R. E. Villavicencio, T. J. Forbes & R. A. Humes

  2. Department of Pediatrics, Children’s Research Center of Michigan, Detroit, MI 48201, USA

    R. L. Thomas

Authors
  1. R. E. Villavicencio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T. J. Forbes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R. L. Thomas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R. A. Humes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. E. Villavicencio.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Villavicencio, R., Forbes, T., Thomas, R. et al. Pressure Recovery in Pediatric Aortic Valve Stenosis . Pediatr Cardiol 24, 457–462 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00246-002-0361-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00246-002-0361-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation