Why the study?
Evaluating hemodynamic performance of aortic valve prostheses primarily relies on echocardiography, requiring an understanding of its principles and limitations relative to invasive hemodynamics following surgical and transcatheter replacement.
What are the principles and limitations of echocardiographic evaluation of aortic valve prostheses compared to invasive hemodynamics?
What are the principles and limitations of echocardiographic evaluation of aortic valve prostheses compared to invasive hemodynamics?
This review provides a comprehensive overview of the hemodynamic principles and limitations of echocardiographic evaluation for prosthetic aortic valves in the TAVR era.
Echocardiography aids prosthetic aortic valve assessment post-TAVR but requires cautious interpretation; leaves open standardized validation against invasive hemodynamics.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Abbas et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: