Advertisement

Doppler echocardiographic assessment of normal and malfunctioning mitral valve prostheses

  • K. Dennig
  • W. Rudolph
Part of the Developments in Cardiovascular Medicine book series (DICM, volume 54)

Abstract

The obstruction inherent to prosthetic valves leads to an increase in the velocity of blood flow across the prostheses, which can be detected by Doppler technique and the time profile of which can be characterized by various parameters. Thereby, values of normal functioning prostheses can be evaluated with the aid of which malfunctions may be detected and assessed. This investigation deals with the use of this method as applied to functional assessment of mechanical and biological mitral valve prostheses.

Keywords

Mitral Regurgitation Valve Prosthesis Orifice Area Mitral Position Mechanical Prosthesis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Hatle L, Brubakk A, Tromsdal A, Angelsen B: Noninvasive assessment of pressure drop in mitral stenosis by Doppler ultrasound. Br Heart J 40: 131–140, 1978.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hatle L, Angelsen B,Tromsdal A: Noninvasive assessment of atrioventricular pressure half-time by Doppler ultrasound. Circulation 60: 1096–1104, 1979.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Levine FH, Carter JE, Buckley MJ, Daggett WM, Akins CW, Austen WG: Hemodynamic evaluation of Hancock and Carpentier-Edwards bioprostheses. Circulation 64, (II): 192–195, 1981.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bruss KH, Reul H, van Gilse J, Knott E: Pressure drop and velocity fields at four mechanical heart valve prostheses: Björk-Shiley standard, Björk-Shiley concave/convex, Hall-Kaster and St. Jude Medical. Life Support Systems 1: 3–22, 1983.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Holen J, Simonsen S, Frøysaker T: An ultrasound Doppler technique for the noninvasive determination of the pressure gradient in the Björk-Shiley mitral valve. Circulation 59: 436–442, 1979.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hatle L, Angelsen B: Doppler ultrasound in Cardiology. Physical Principles and Clinical Applications ( 2nd ed. ). Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger, 1985.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ubago JL, Figueroa A, Colman T, Ochoteco A, Duran CG: Hemodynamic factors that affect calculated orifice areas in the mitral Hancock xenograft valve. Circulation 61: 388–394, 1980.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wright JTM: In vitro comparison between the hydrodynamic characteristics of the Hancock 250 (modified orifice) xenografts and the Björk-Shiley aortic valve prosthesis. Tran. Am. Soc. Artif. Intern. Organs 13: 89–96, 1977.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Walker DK, Scotten LN, Modi VJ, Brownlee RT: In vitro assessment of mitral valve prostheses. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 79: 680–688, 1980.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Abbasi AS, Allen MW, DeChristofaro D, Ungar J: Detection and estimation of the degree of mitral regurgitation by range-gated pulsed Doppler echocardiography. Circulation 61: 143–147, 1980.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nichol PM, Boughner DR, Persaud JA: Noninvasive assessment of mitral regurgitation by transcutaneous Doppler ultrasound. Circulation 54: 656–661, 1976.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Dennig
  • W. Rudolph

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations