Skip to main content
Log in

Accuracy of aortic stenosis severity assessment by Doppler echocardiography: importance of image quality

  • Articles
  • Published:
The International Journal of Cardiac Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to investigate which factors could influence the accuracy of aortic stenosis severity assessment by Doppler echocardiography in an unselected population. Doppler echocardiographic determination of mean transvalvular pressure gradient and aortic valve area by continuity equation was performed in 101 patients before catheterization. According to the catheterization data, aortic stenosis was classified into 2 categories: mild to moderate (orifice area [Gorlin formula] > 0.75 cm2, mean transvalvular gradient < 50 mmHg) and severe (orifice area < 0.75 cm2, mean transvalvular gradient ≥ 50 mmHg). The influence of eight factors on the absolute difference in aortic valve area and mean transvalvular pressure gradient and on the concordant classification in the same category by both methods was investigated.Results. By multivariate analysis, the absolute difference in aortic valve area by both methods was significantly associated with poor image quality, absolute difference between mean catheterization and Doppler transvalvular gradient and inversely related to body mass index. Absolute difference in mean transvalvular gradients by both methods was significantly associated only with image quality. Poor image quality emerged as the only significant factor influencing the concordant classification between invasive and noninvasive studies according to orifice area (but not according to transvalvular pressure gradient).Conclusion. Echographic image quality significantly influences the accuracy of Doppler echocardiographic determination of aortic valve area and, to a lesser extent, of transvalvular pressure gradient. Therefore, the mere noninvasive approach is not suitable to every consecutive patient with aortic stenosis. Qualifications concerning overall image quality should identify patients most likely to benefit from catheterization.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Oh JK, Taliercio CP, Holmes DR, Reeder GS, Bailey KR, Seward JB, Tajik AJ. Prediction of the severity of aortic stenosis by Doppler aortic valve area determination: prospective Doppler-catheterization correlation in 100 patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 1988; 11: 1227–34.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Otto CM, Pearlman AS, Comess KA, Raemer RP, Janko CL, Huntsman LL. Determination of the stenotic aortic valve area in adults using Doppler echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 1986; 7: 509–17.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Skjaerpe T, Hegrenaes L, Hatle L. Noninvasive estimation of valve area in patients with aortic stenosis by Doppler ultrasound and two-dimensional echocardiography. Circulation 1985; 72: 810–8.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Teirstein P, Yeager M, Yock PG, Popp RL. Doppler echocardiographic measurement of aortic valve area in aortic stenosis: a noninvasive application of the Gorlin formula. J Am Coll Cardiol 1986; 8: 1059–65.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Otto CM, Pearlman AS, Gardner CL. Hemodynamic progression of aortic stenosis in adults assessed by Doppler echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 1989; 13: 545–50.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Miller FA Jr. Aortic stenosis: Most cases no longer require invasive hemodynamic study. J Am Coll Cardiol 1989; 13: 551–3.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Otto CM, Pearlman AS. Doppler echocardiography in adults with symptomatic aortic stenosis. Diagnostic utility and costeffectiveness. Arch Intern Med 1988; 148: 2553–60.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Galan A, Zoghbi WA, Quinones MA. Determination of severity of valvular aortic stenosis by Doppler echocardiography and relation to findings to clinical outcome and agreement with hemodynamic measurements determined at cardiac catheterization. Am J Cardiol 1991; 67: 1007–12.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Shub C, Tajik AJ, Holmes DR Jr, Reeder GS, Freeman WK, Ilstrup DM, Smith HC. Doppler echocardiography in aortic stenosis: feasibility and clinical impact. Int J Cardiol 1990; 28: 57–66.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Pearlman AS. The use of Doppler in the evaluation of cardiac disorders and function. In: Hurst JW et al: The Heart. 7th edition. New York McGraw Hill 1990: 2039–63.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hatle L, Angeisen B. Doppler ultrasound in cardiology: Physical principles and clinical applications. Blood dynamics pressure velocity relationships. 2nd edition. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger 1986: 24–6.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Folland ED, Parisi AF, Carbone C. Is peripheral arterial pressure a satisfactory substitute for ascending aortic pressure when measuring aortic valve gradients. J Am Coll Cardiol 1984; 4: 1207–11.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gorlin R, Gorlin G. Hydraulic formula for calculation of area of stenotic mitral valve and other cardiac valves and central circulatory shunts. Am Heart J 1951; 41: 1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kennedy JW, Trenholm SE, Kasser IS. Left ventricular volume and mass from single-plane cineangiograms. A comparison of antero-posterior and right oblique methods. Am Heart J 1970; 80: 343–52.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hammermeister KE, Brooks RCC, Warbasse JR. The Rate of change of left ventricular volume in man. Circulation 1974; 69: 729–38.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Olefsky JM. Obesity. In: Wilson et al. Harrison's principles of Internal medicine. 12th edition 1991: 411–7.

  17. Braunwald E. Aortic stenosis. In: Braunwald E (ed.) Heart disease. A textbook of cardiovascular medicine. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1992: 1039–57.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Otto CM, Davis KB, Holmes DR Jr, O'Neill W, Ferguson J, Bashore TM, Bonan R and the principal investigators and echocardiographers of the NHLPBI Balloon Valvuloplasty Registry. Methodologic issues in clinical evaluation of stenosis severity in adults undergoing aortic or mitral balloon valvuloplasty. Am J Cardiol 1992; 69: 1607–16.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Currie JP, Seward JB, Reeder GS, Vliestra RE, Renshan DR, Smith HC, Hagler DJ, Tajik AJ. Continuous-wave Doppler echocardiographic assessment of calcific aortic stenosis: a simultaneous Doppler-catheter correlative study in 100 adult patients. Circulation 1985;71: 1162–9.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Danielsen R, Nordrehaug JE, Stangeland L, Vik-Mo H. Limitations in assessing the severity of aortic stenosis by Doppler gradients. Br Heart J 1988; 59: 551–5.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Danielsen R, Nordrehaug JE, Vik-Mo H. Factors affecting Doppler echocardiographic area assessment in aortic stenosis. Am J Cardiol 1989; 63: 1107–11.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Carabello BA, Grosmann W. Calculation of stenotic valve orifice area. In: Grosmann W (ed.) Cardiac catheterization and coronary angiography, Philadelphia: Lea end Febiger 1992: 152–65.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Carabello BA. Advances in the hemodynamic assessment of stenotic cardiac valves. J Am Coll Cardiol 1987; 10: 912–9.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Baumgartner H, Schima H, Tulzer G. Effect of Stenosis Geometry on the Doppler-catheter gradient relation in vitro: a manifestation of pressure recovery. J Am Coll Cardiol 1993; 21: 1018–25.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Paulus WJ, Sys SU, Heyndrickx GR, Andries E. Orifice variability of the stenotic aortic valve: evaluation before and after balloon aortic valvuloplasty. J Am Coll Cardiol 1991; 17: 1263–9.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bartunek, J., De Bacquer, D., Rodrigues, A.C. et al. Accuracy of aortic stenosis severity assessment by Doppler echocardiography: importance of image quality. Int J Cardiac Imag 11, 97–104 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01844707

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01844707

Key words

Navigation