Key result
Digitally automated cardiac flow measurement simplifies clinical assessment compared to conventional pulsed Doppler by accounting for temporal changes in flow area without manual tracing.
Digitally automated cardiac flow measurement provides a simpler and easier alternative to conventional pulsed Doppler by accounting for spatial velocity profiles and temporal changes in flow area without requiring manual tracing.
Simplifies automated flow quantification in echocardiography; leaves open prospective validation of accuracy before clinical adoption.
Quantification of cardiac flow volumes, such as stroke volumes and cardiac outputs, has had a major impact on the management of patients with cardiac diseases In the 1980s, the development of Doppler echocardiography, especially pulsed wave Doppler techniques, provided significant progress in determining cardiac flow volumes.1–3 The pulsed wave Doppler method is based on a simple mathematical principle, which multiplies a flow area by its velocity during the flow time (velocity–time integral) to estimate a flow volume.1–3 This Doppler method assumes a spatially flat flow velocity distribution and a constant flow area during the entire time of flow. However, the spatial velocity profile is not necessarily flat and the flow area may change during the time of flow.1–3 In the 1990s, a digitally automated cardiac flow measurement method was developed to overcome these shortcomings of the conventional pulsed Doppler method.4–11 This new method uses not only a single central point but also multiple Doppler points in space along the diameter of the flow; it also uses several imaging frames during the time of flow, accounting for the temporal change in the flow area (that is, not assuming a constant flow area).4 In addition, the calculation does not require manual tracing of the Doppler velocity nor the measurement of flow diameter. Thus, the actual use of this automated method in clinical settings is simpler and easier than the conventional pulsed Doppler method.6–11 When we try to calculate a cardiac flow volume (for example, stroke volume) from a patient, we only …
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Takahiro Shiota (2002) conducted a review in Cardiac diseases. Digitally automated cardiac flow measurement vs. Conventional pulsed wave Doppler was evaluated. Digitally automated cardiac flow measurement simplifies clinical assessment compared to conventional pulsed Doppler by accounting for temporal changes in flow area without manual tracing.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: