Hemodynamic principles of prosthetic aortic valve evaluation in the transcatheter aortic valve replacement era.
Bernoulli equation
continuity equation
echocardiography and catheterization discordance
pressure recovery
prosthesis patient mismatch
transcatheter aortic valve replacement
Journal
Echocardiography (Mount Kisco, N.Y.)
ISSN: 1540-8175
Titre abrégé: Echocardiography
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8511187
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2020
05 2020
Historique:
received:
14
01
2020
revised:
28
03
2020
accepted:
29
03
2020
pubmed:
4
5
2020
medline:
24
6
2021
entrez:
4
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Evaluating the hemodynamic performance of aortic valve prostheses has relied primarily on echocardiography. This involves calculating the trans-prosthetic valve mean gradient (MG) and aortic valve area (AVA), and assessing for valvular and paravalvular regurgitation in a fashion similar to the native aortic valve. In conjunction with other echocardiographic and nonechocardiographic parameters, MG and AVA are used to distinguish between prosthesis stenosis, prosthesis patient mismatch, pressure recovery, increased flow, and measurement errors. This review will discuss the principles and limitations of echocardiographic evaluation of aortic valve prosthesis following surgical, and transcatheter aortic valve replacement and in comparison to invasive hemodynamics through illustrative clinical cases.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
738-757Informations de copyright
© 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Références
Zoghbi WA, Chambers JB, Dumesnil JG, et al. Recommendations for evaluation of prosthetic valves with echocardiography and doppler ultrasound: a report From the American Society of Echocardiography's Guidelines and Standards Committee and the Task Force on Prosthetic Valves. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2009;22:975-1014; quiz 1082-1084.
Hatle L, Brubakk A, Tromsdal A, Angelsen B. Noninvasive assessment of pressure drop in mitral stenosis by Doppler ultrasound. Br Heart J. 1978;40:131-140.
Firstenberg MS, Abel EE, Papadimos TJ, Tripathi RS. Nonconvective forces: a critical and often ignored component in the echocardiographic assessment of transvalvular pressure gradients. Cardiol Res Pract. 2012;2012:383217.
Cape EG, Jones M, Yamada I, VanAuker MD, Valdes-Cruz LM. Turbulent/viscous interactions control Doppler/catheter pressure discrepancies in aortic stenosis. The role of the Reynolds number. Circulation. 1996;94:2975-2981.
Baumgartner H, Hung J, Bermejo J, et al. Echocardiographic assessment of valve stenosis: EAE/ASE recommendations for clinical practice. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2009;22:1-23; quiz 101-102.
Pibarot P, Garcia D, Dumesnil JG. Energy loss index in aortic stenosis: from fluid mechanics concept to clinical application. Circulation. 2013;127:1101-1104.
Abbas AE, Franey LM, Lester S, et al. The role of jet eccentricity in generating disproportionately elevated transaortic pressure gradients in patients with aortic stenosis. Echocardiography. 2015;32:372-382.
Baumgartner H, Stefenelli T, Niederberger J, Schima H, Maurer G. “Overestimation” of catheter gradients by Doppler ultrasound in patients with aortic stenosis: a predictable manifestation of pressure recovery. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;33:1655-1661.
Gorlin R, Gorlin SG. Hydraulic formula for calculation of the area of the stenotic mitral valve, other cardiac valves, and central circulatory shunts. I. Am Heart J. 1951;41:1-29.
Abbas AE, Pibarot P. Hemodynamic characterization of aortic stenosis states. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;93:1002-1023.
Donati F, Myerson S, Bissell MM, et al. Beyond Bernoulli: improving the accuracy and precision of noninvasive estimation of peak pressure drops. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 201710:e005207.
Hatoum H, Yousefi A, Lilly S, Maureira P, Crestanello J, Dasi LP. An in vitro evaluation of turbulence after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2018;156:1837-1848.
Mascherbauer J, Schima H, Maurer G, Baumgartner H. Doppler assessment of mechanical aortic valve prostheses: effect of valve design and size of the aorta. J Heart Valve Dis. 2004;13:823-830.
Hatoum H, Hahn RT, Lilly S, Dasi LP. Differences in pressure recovery between balloon expandable and self-expandable transcatheter aortic valves. Ann Biomed Eng. 2020;48:860-867.
Vandervoort PM, Greenberg NL, Powell KA, Cosgrove DM, Thomas JD. Pressure recovery in bileaflet heart valve prostheses. Localized high velocities and gradients in central and side orifices with implications for Doppler-catheter gradient relation in aortic and mitral position. Circulation. 1995;92:3464-3472.
Shames S, Koczo A, Hahn R, Jin Z, Picard MH, Gillam LD. Flow characteristics of the SAPIEN aortic valve: the importance of recognizing in-stent flow acceleration for the echocardiographic assessment of valve function. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2012;25:603-609.
Baumgartner H, Khan S, DeRobertis M, Czer L, Maurer G. Discrepancies between Doppler and catheter gradients in aortic prosthetic valves in vitro. A manifestation of localized gradients and pressure recovery. Circulation. 1990;82:1467-1475.
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.
Baumgartner H, Khan SS, DeRobertis M, Czer LS, Maurer G. Doppler assessment of prosthetic valve orifice area. An in vitro study. Circulation. 1992;85:2275-2283.
Baumgartner H, Schima H, Kuhn P. Discrepancies between Doppler and catheter gradients across bileaflet aortic valve prostheses. Am J Cardiol. 1993;71:1241-1243.
Baumgartner H, Schima H, Kuhn P. Effect of prosthetic valve malfunction on the Doppler-catheter gradient relation for bileaflet aortic valve prostheses. Circulation. 1993;87:1320-1327.
Abbas AE, Hanzel GS, Shannon F, et al. Post TAVR trans-aortic valve gradients; Echocardiographic versus invasive measurements: the role of pressure recovery. Struct Heart J. 2019;3:348-350.
Abbas AE, Mando R, Hanzel GS, et al. Invasive versus echocardiographic evaluation of transvalvular gradients immediately post TAVR: demonstration of significant echocardiography-catheterization discordance. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;93:56.
Rahimtoola SH. The problem of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch. Circulation. 1978;58:20-24.
Pibarot P, Weissman NJ, Stewart WJ, et al. Incidence and sequelae of prosthesis-patient mismatch in transcatheter versus surgical valve replacement in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis: a PARTNER trial cohort-a analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:1323-1334.
Thyregod HG, Steinbruchel DA, Ihlemann N, et al. No clinical effect of prosthesis-patient mismatch after transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in intermediate- and low-risk patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at mid-term follow-up: an analysis from the NOTION trial. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016;50:721-728.
Zorn GL 3rd, Little SH, Tadros P, et al. Prosthesis-patient mismatch in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis: a randomized trial of a self-expanding prosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;151:1014-1022, 1023.e1-3.
Ewe SH, Muratori M, Delgado V, et al. Hemodynamic and clinical impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:1910-1918.
Miyasaka M, Tada N, Taguri M, et al. Incidence, predictors, and clinical impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch following transcatheter aortic valve replacement in Asian patients: the OCEAN-TAVI registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;11:771-780.
Tzikas A, Piazza N, Geleijnse ML, et al. Prosthesis-patient mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the medtronic CoreValve system in patients with aortic stenosis. Am J Cardiol. 2010;106:255-260.
Herrmann HC, Daneshvar SA, Fonarow GC, et al. Prosthesis-patient mismatch in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: from the STS/ACC TVT registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72:2701-2711.
Okuno T, Khan F, Asami M, et al. Prosthesis-patient mismatch following transcatheter aortic valve replacement with supra-annular and intra-annular prostheses. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12:2173-2182.
Mohty D, Malouf JF, Girard SE, et al. Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on long-term survival in patients with small St Jude Medical mechanical prostheses in the aortic position. Circulation. 2006;113:420-426.
Chacko SJ, Ansari AH, McCarthy PM, et al. Prosthesis-patient mismatch in bovine pericardial aortic valves: evaluation using 3 different modalities and associated medium-term outcomes. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;6:776-783.
Tasca G, Mhagna Z, Perotti S, et al. Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on cardiac events and midterm mortality after aortic valve replacement in patients with pure aortic stenosis. Circulation. 2006;113:570-576.
Dayan V, Vignolo G, Soca G, Paganini JJ, Brusich D, Pibarot P. Predictors and outcomes of prosthesis-patient mismatch after aortic valve replacement. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;9:924-933.
Zbronski K, Rymuza B, Scislo P, et al. Patient-prosthesis mismatch in patients treated with transcatheter aortic valve implantation - predictors, incidence and impact on clinical efficacy. A preliminary study. Postepy Kardiol Interwencyjnej. 2017;13:281-287.
Takagi H, Umemoto T, ALICE Group. Prosthesis-patient mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;101:872-880.
Poulin F, Yingchoncharoen T, Wilson WM, et al. Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on left ventricular myocardial mechanics after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Am Heart Assoc. 2016;5(2):e002866.
Liao YB, Li YJ, Jun-Li L, et al. Incidence, predictors and outcome of prosthesis-patient mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2017;7:15014.
Koch CG, Khandwala F, Estafanous FG, Loop FD, Blackstone EH. Impact of prosthesis-patient size on functional recovery after aortic valve replacement. Circulation. 2005;111:3221-3229.
Jamieson WR, Ye J, Higgins J, et al. Effect of prosthesis-patient mismatch on long-term survival with aortic valve replacement: assessment to 15 years. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010;89:51-58; discussion 59.
Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Prosthesis-patient mismatch: definition, clinical impact, and prevention. Heart. 2006;92:1022-1029.
Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Hemodynamic and clinical impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch in the aortic valve position and its prevention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36:1131-1141.
Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Patient-prosthesis mismatch is not negligible. Ann Thorac Surg. 2000;69:1983-1984.
Daneshvar SA, Rahimtoola SH. Valve prosthesis-patient mismatch (VP-PM): a long-term perspective. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:1123-1135.
Lancellotti P, Pibarot P, Chambers J, et al. Recommendations for the imaging assessment of prosthetic heart valves: a report from the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging endorsed by the Chinese Society of Echocardiography, the Inter-American Society of Echocardiography, and the Brazilian Department of Cardiovascular Imaging. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;17:589-590.
Hahn RT, Leipsic J, Douglas PS, et al. Comprehensive echocardiographic assessment of normal transcatheter valve function. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018;12:25-34.
Cohen RG, Bourne ET. Industry-generated charts for the selection of stented aortic valve prostheses: clinical tool or marketing ploy? Ann Thorac Surg. 2011;91:1001-1002.
Baumgartner H, Hung J, Bermejo J, et al. Recommendations on the echocardiographic assessment of aortic valve stenosis: a focused update from the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging and the American Society of Echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2017;30:372-392.
Lancellotti P, Pellikka PA, Budts W, et al. The clinical use of stress echocardiography in non-ischaemic heart disease: recommendations from the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging and the American Society of Echocardiography. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;17:1191-1229.
Zoghbi WA, Asch FM, Bruce C, et al. Guidelines for the evaluation of valvular regurgitation after percutaneous valve repair or replacement: a report from the American Society of Echocardiography Developed in Collaboration with the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Japanese Society of Echocardiography, and Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2019;32:431-475.
Fukui M, Tang L, Lesser J, et al. Prevalence and severity of prosthesis-patient mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve replacement defined by computed tomography vs. transthoracic echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74:1622.
Abbas AE. Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement: the phobia of an elevated echocardiographic gradient. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74:1516-1517.
Webb JG, Murdoch DJ, Alu MC, et al. 3-Year outcomes after valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement for degenerated bioprostheses: the PARTNER 2 registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73:2647-2655.
Bleiziffer S, Erlebach M, Simonato M, et al. Incidence, predictors and clinical outcomes of residual stenosis after aortic valve-in-valve. Heart. 2018;104:828-834.
Tuzcu EM, Kapadia SR, Vemulapalli S, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement of failed surgically implanted bioprostheses: the STS/ACC registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72:370-382.
Michelena HI, Margaryan E, Miller FA, et al. Inconsistent echocardiographic grading of aortic stenosis: is the left ventricular outflow tract important? Heart. 2013;99:921-931.