PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
November 19, 2015Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging33 citationsOpen Access

Simplified Bernoulli's method significantly underestimates pulmonary transvalvular pressure drop

AFAhmad FalahatpishehCRCarsten RickersDGDominik Daniel Gabbert

Key Result

The simplified Bernoulli's method significantly underestimated pulmonary transvalvular pressure drop at peak systole compared to the general Bernoulli's equation (ratio 0.82).

Study Design

Type

Observational (n=24)

Multicenter

Yes

Structured PICO

Does the Simplified Bernoulli's Equation underestimate pulmonary transvalvular pressure drop compared to the General Bernoulli's Equation in healthy subjects and patients with repaired congenital heart defects?

P
Population
24 subjects including 4 healthy volunteers, 7 patients with repaired tetralogy of Fallot, and 13 patients with repaired transposition of the great arteries (8 Lecompte procedure, 5 spiral procedure), mean age 21.6 years, 37.5% female.
I
Intervention
Estimation of pulmonary transvalvular pressure drop using the Simplified Bernoulli's Equation (SBE)
C
Comparator
Estimation of pulmonary transvalvular pressure drop using the General Bernoulli's Equation (GBE)
O
Outcome
Pulmonary transvalvular pressure drop during systolesurrogate

The simplified Bernoulli's equation significantly underestimates pulmonary transvalvular pressure drop compared to the general Bernoulli's equation, suggesting that flow unsteadiness should be accounted for in clinical assessments.

Main Result

Effect estimate: Ratio 0.82 (95% CI 0.700-0.943)

Absolute Event Rate: 35.47% vs 39.51%

p-value: p=0.0042

Limitations

  • Invasive cardiac catheterization data were not available for comparison with the measured pressure drops using the MRI data
  • Inherent limitations of 4D-flow MR
  • Invasive cardiac catheterization data were not available for comparison with the measured pressure drops using the MRI data.

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine whether neglecting the flow unsteadiness in simplified Bernoulli's equation significantly affects the pulmonary transvalvular pressure drop estimation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 3.0T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) 4D velocity mapping was performed on four healthy volunteers, seven patients with repaired tetralogy of Fallot, and thirteen patients with transposition of the great arteries repaired by arterial switch. Pulmonary transvalvular pressure drop was estimated based on two methods: General Bernoulli's Equation (GBE), ie, the most complete form; and Simplified Bernoulli's Equation (SBE), known as 4V(2) . More than 2300 individual pressure drop measurements were used to compare the simplified and the general Bernoulli's methods. A linear mixed-effects model was employed for statistical analyses, fully accounting for clustering of observations among the methods and systolic phases. RESULTS: The simplified Bernoulli's method systematically underestimated the pressure drop compared to general Bernoulli's method during the entire systolic phase (P < 0.05), including the peak systole, where on average ΔpSBE/ΔpGBE=78%. CONCLUSION: The simplified Bernoulli method underestimated the pressure drop during all systolic phases in all the studied subjects. Therefore, it is necessary to take into account the flow unsteadiness for more accurate estimation of the pressure drop. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2016;43:1313-1319.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Falahatpisheh et al. (2015) conducted an observational in Repaired congenital heart defects and healthy volunteers (n=24). Simplified Bernoulli's Equation (SBE) vs. General Bernoulli's Equation (GBE) was evaluated on Pulmonary transvalvular pressure drop at peak systole (mmHg) (Ratio 0.82, 95% CI 0.700-0.943, p=0.0042). The simplified Bernoulli's method significantly underestimated pulmonary transvalvular pressure drop at peak systole compared to the general Bernoulli's equation (ratio 0.82).

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a1c8e0f66d062ff2dc3f44fhttps://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25097
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper