Impact of Pressure Recovery in the Evaluation of the Omnicarbon™ Tilting Disc Valve

Abstract

Background: Pressure recovery is not taken into account when calculating transprosthetic gradients after mechanical valve replacement using Doppler echocardiography. This may lead to underestimation of valvular performance. Methods: Simultaneous measurement of Doppler and direct transprosthetic gradients was performed in a circulatory mock loop simulator with physiologic parameters at different heart rates and cardiac outputs for small-sized aortic Omnicarbon™ tilting disc valves (19 - 21 mm). Results: In all adjustments the Doppler gradient significantly overestimated the net transvalvular gradient. The amount of pressure recovery averaged 59.3 %. Conclusions: Doppler echocardiography does not allow for pressure recovery, which is a significant phenomenon in the hemodynamic function of the Omnicarbon™ tilting disc valve. Valve performance is much better than expected from Doppler gradients.

Transvalvular gradient - pressure recovery - Omnicarbon™ valve

References

• 1 Baumgartner H, Schima H, Tulzer G, Kuhn P. Effect of stenosis geometry on the Doppler-catheter gradient relation in vitro: a manifestation of pressure recovery.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993;  21 1018-1025
• 2 Khan S S. Assessment of prosthetic Valve hemodynamics by Doppler: Lessons learned from in vitro studies of the St. Jude valve.  J Heart valve Dis. 1993;  2 183-193
• 3 Voelker W, Reul H, Stelzer T, Schmidt A, Karsch K R. Pressure recovery in aortic stenosis: an in vitro study in a pulsatile flow model.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 1992;  20 1585-1593
• 4 Yoganathan A P. Fluid mechanics of aortic stenosis.  Eur Heart J. 1988;  9 (Suppl E) 13-17
• 5 Bech-Hanssen O, Caidahl K, Wallentin I, Brandberg J, Wranne B, Ask P. Aortic prosthetic valve design and size: relation to Doppler echocardiographic findings and pressure recovery - an in vitro study.  J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2000;  13 39-50
• 6 Knott E, Reul H, Knoch M, Steinseifer U, Rau G. In vitro comparison of aortic heart valve prostheses. Part 1: Mechanical valves.  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1988;  96 952-961
• 7 Reul H, Minamitami H, Runge J. A hydraulic analog of the systemic and pulmonary circulation for testing artificial hearts.  Proc ESAO. 1975;  2 120-127
• 8 Baumgartner H, Khan S, DeRobertis M, Czer L, Maurer G. Effect of prosthetic aortic valve design on the Doppler-catheter gradient correlation: an in vitro study of normal St. Jude, Medtronic-Hall, Starr-Edwards and Hancock valves.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 1992;  19 324-332
• 9 Pibarot P, Dumesnil J G. Hemodynamic and clinical impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch in the aortic valve position and its prevention.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;  36 1131-1141
• 10 Heinrich R S, Fontaine A A, Gimes R Y. et al . Experimental analysis of fluid mechanical energy losses in aortic valve stenosis: importance of pressure recovery.  Annals of Biomedical Engineering. 1996;  24 685-694
• 11 Garcia D, Dumesnil J G, Durand L G, Kadem L, Pibarot P. Discrepancies between catheter and Doppler estimates of valve effective orifice area can be predicted from the pressure recovery phenomenon.  J Am Coll Card. 2003;  41 435-442
• 12 Walther T, Falk V, Weigl C. et al . Discrepancy of sizers for conventional and stentless aortic valve implants.  J Heart Valve Dis. 1997;  6 145-148