This Article Full Text Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Voelker, W. Articles by Karsch, K. R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Voelker, W. Articles by Karsch, K. R.

(Circulation. 1995;91:1196-1204.)
© 1995 American Heart Association, Inc.

Articles

Comparison of Valvular Resistance, Stroke Work Loss, and Gorlin Valve Area for Quantification of Aortic Stenosis

An In Vitro Study in a Pulsatile Aortic Flow Model

Presented in part at the 65th Scientific Sessions of the American Heart Association, November 1992, New Orleans, La.

Wolfram Voelker, MD; Helmut Reul, PhD; Georg Nienhaus Ing, Dipl; Thomas Stelzer Ing, Dipl; Bernhard Schmitz Ing, Dipl; Anselm Steegers Ing, Dipl; Karl R. Karsch, MD

From the Department of Cardiology (W.V., K.R.K.), Tuebingen University, Tuebingen; and the Helmholtz Institute for Biomedical Engineering (H.R., G.N., T.S., B.S., A.S.), Aachen University of Technology, Aachen, Germany.

Correspondence to Wolfram Voelker, MD, Department of Cardiology, Internal Medicine III, Otfried-Müller-Str 10, 72076 Tübingen, Germany.

Background Valvular resistance and stroke work loss have been proposed as alternative measures of stenotic valvular lesions that may be less flow dependent and, thus, superior over valve area calculations for the quantification of aortic stenosis. The present in vitro study was designed to compare the impacts of valvular resistance, stroke work loss, and Gorlin valve area as hemodynamic indexes of aortic stenosis.

Methods and Results In a pulsatile aortic flow model, rigid stenotic orifices in varying sizes (0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 cm²) and geometry were studied under different hemodynamic conditions. Ventricular and aortic pressures were measured to determine the mean systolic ventricular pressure (LVSP_m) and the transstenotic pressure gradient (P_m). Transvalvular flow (F_m) was assessed with an electromagnetic flowmeter. Valvular resistance [VR=1333 · (P_m/F_m)] and stroke work loss [SWL=100 · (P_m/LVSP_m)] were calculated and compared with aortic valve area [AVA=F_m/(50P_m)]. The measurements were performed for a large range of transvalvular flows. At low-flow states, flow augmentation (100200 mL/s) increased calculated valvular resistance between 21% (2.0-cm² orifice) and 66% (0.5-cm² orifice). Stroke work loss demonstrated an increase from 43% (2.0 cm²) to 100% (1.0 cm²). In contrast, Gorlin valve area revealed only a moderate change from 29% (2.0 cm²) to 5% (0.5 cm²). At physiological flow rates, increase in transvalvular flow (200300 mL/s) did not alter calculated Gorlin valve area, whereas valvular resistance and stroke work loss demonstrated a continuing increase. Our experimental results were adopted to interpret the results of three clinical studies in aortic stenosis. The flow-dependent increase of Gorlin valve area, which was found in the cited clinical studies, can be elucidated as true further opening of the stenotic valve but not as a calculation error due to the Gorlin formula.

Conclusions Within the physiological range of flow, calculated aortic valve area was less dependent on hemodynamic conditions than were valvular resistance and stroke work loss, which varied as a function of flow. Thus, for the assessment of the severity of aortic stenosis, the Gorlin valve area is superior over valvular resistance and stroke work loss, which must be indexed for flow to adequately quantify the hemodynamic severity of the obstruction.

Key Words: hemodynamics • aorta • valves • stenosis

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. Mascherbauer, C. Fuchs, M. Stoiber, H. Schima, E. Pernicka, G. Maurer, and H. Baumgartner Systemic pressure does not directly affect pressure gradient and valve area estimates in aortic stenosis in vitro Eur. Heart J., May 22, 2008; (2008) ehn209v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Turto, J. Lommi, M. Ventila, and M. Kupari Doppler echocardiography markedly underestimates left ventricular stroke work loss in severe aortic valve stenosis Eur J Echocardiogr, October 1, 2007; 8(5): 341 - 345. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. H Little, K.-L. Chan, and I. G Burwash Impact of blood pressure on the Doppler echocardiographic assessment of severity of aortic stenosis Heart, July 1, 2007; 93(7): 848 - 855. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. Gerosa, V. Tarzia, G. Rizzoli, and T. Bottio Small aortic annulus: The hydrodynamic performances of 5 commercially available tissue valves J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., May 1, 2006; 131(5): 1058 - 1064. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Baumgartner Hemodynamic Assessment of Aortic Stenosis: Are There Still Lessons to Learn? J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., January 3, 2006; 47(1): 138 - 140. [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Kadem, R. Rieu, J. G. Dumesnil, L.-G. Durand, and P. Pibarot Flow-Dependent Changes in Doppler-Derived Aortic Valve Effective Orifice Area Are Real and Not Due to Artifact J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., January 3, 2006; 47(1): 131 - 137. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Kadem, R. Rieu, J. G. Dumesnil, L.-G. Durand, and P. Pibarot Flow-Dependent Changes in Doppler-Derived Aortic Valve Effective Orifice Area Are Real and Not Due to Artifact J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., December 14, 2005; (2005) j.jacc.2005.05.100v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Baumgartner Hemodynamic Assessment of Aortic Stenosis: Are There Still Lessons to Learn? J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., December 13, 2005; (2005) j.jacc.2005.10.001v1. [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Garcia, P. J. C. Barenbrug, P. Pibarot, A. L. A. J. Dekker, F. H. van der Veen, J. G. Maessen, J. G. Dumesnil, and L.-G. Durand A ventricular-vascular coupling model in presence of aortic stenosis Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol, April 1, 2005; 288(4): H1874 - H1884. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J Bermejo The effects of hypertension on aortic valve stenosis Heart, March 1, 2005; 91(3): 280 - 282. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Bottio, L. Caprili, D. Casarotto, and G. Gerosa Small aortic annulus: The hydrodynamic performances of 5 commercially available bileaflet mechanical valves J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., September 1, 2004; 128(3): 457 - 462. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Mascherbauer, H. Schima, R. Rosenhek, M. Czerny, G. Maurer, and H. Baumgartner Value and limitations of aortic valve resistance with particular consideration of low flow-low gradient aortic stenosis: an in vitro study Eur. Heart J., May 1, 2004; 25(9): 787 - 793. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Das, H. Rimington, N. Smeeton, and J. Chambers Determinants of symptoms and exercise capacity in aortic stenosis: a comparison of resting haemodynamics and valve compliance during dobutamine stress Eur. Heart J., July 1, 2003; 24(13): 1254 - 1263. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Bermejo, R. Odreman, J. Feijoo, M. M. Moreno, P. Gomez-Moreno, and M. A. Garcia-Fernandez Clinical efficacy of Doppler-echocardiographic indices of aortic valve stenosis:a comparative test-based analysis of outcome J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., January 1, 2003; 41(1): 142 - 151. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Gilon, E. G. Cape, M. D. Handschumacher, J.-K. Song, J. Solheim, M. VanAuker, M. E. E. King, and R. A. Levine Effect of three-dimensional valve shape on the hemodynamics of aortic stenosis: Three-dimensional echocardiographic stereolithography and patient studies J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., October 16, 2002; 40(8): 1479 - 1486. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Shandas, J. Kwon, and L. Valdes-Cruz A Method for Determining the Reference Effective Flow Areas for Mechanical Heart Valve Prostheses : In Vitro Validation Studies Circulation, April 25, 2000; 101(16): 1953 - 1959. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F ANTONINI-CANTERIN, P FAGGIANO, D ZANUTTINI, and F RIBICHINI Is aortic valve resistance more clinically meaningful than valve area in aortic stenosis? Heart, July 1, 1999; 82(1): 9 - 10. [Full Text] [PDF]

				S Takeda, H Rimington, and J Chambers The relation between transaortic pressure difference and flow during dobutamine stress echocardiography in patients with aortic stenosis Heart, July 1, 1999; 82(1): 11 - 14. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. G. DeGroff, R. Shandas, and L. Valdes-Cruz Analysis of the Effect of Flow Rate on the Doppler Continuity Equation for Stenotic Orifice Area Calculations : A Numerical Study Circulation, April 28, 1998; 97(16): 1597 - 1605. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. G. Klues, E. R. Schwarz, J. vom Dahl, T. Reffelmann, H. Reul, K. Potthast, C. Schmitz, J. Minartz, W. Krebs, and i. Hanrath Disturbed Intracoronary Hemodynamics in Myocardial Bridging : Early Normalization by Intracoronary Stent Placement Circulation, November 4, 1997; 96(9): 2905 - 2913. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				D. Gilon, E. G. Cape, M. D. Handschumacher, L. Jiang, C. Sears, J. Solheim, E. Morris, J. T. Strobel, S. M. Miller-Jones, A. E. Weyman, et al. Insights From Three-dimensional Echocardiographic Laser Stereolithography: Effect of Leaflet Funnel Geometry on the Coefficient of Orifice Contraction, Pressure Loss, and the Gorlin Formula in Mitral Stenosis Circulation, August 1, 1996; 94(3): 452 - 459. [Abstract] [Full Text]