Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T20:26:43.412Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of invasive and non-invasive pressure gradients in aortic arch obstruction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2015

Bethany L. Wisotzkey ,
Christoph P. Hornik ,
Amanda S. Green  and
Piers C. A. Barker
Bethany L. Wisotzkey
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Seattle Children’s Hospital, Seattle, Washington, United States of America
Christoph P. Hornik
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America
Amanda S. Green
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Miami Children’s Hospital, Miami, Florida, United States of America
Piers C. A. Barker*
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America
*
Correspondence to: Dr P. C. A. Barker, MD, Duke Children’s Heart Program, CHC 1927A, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, United States of America. Tel: 919 681 2916; Fax: 919-681-5903; E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Aortic arch obstruction can be evaluated by catheter peak-to-peak gradient or by Doppler peak instantaneous pressure gradient. Previous studies have shown moderate correlation in discrete coarctation, but few have assessed correlation in patients with more complex aortic reconstruction.

Methods

We carried out retrospective comparison of cardiac catheterisations and pre- and post-catheterisation echocardiograms in 60 patients with native/recurrent coarctation or aortic reconstruction. Aortic arch obstruction was defined as peak-to-peak gradient ⩾25 mmHg in patients with native/recurrent coarctation and ⩾10 mmHg in aortic reconstruction.

Results

Diastolic continuation of flow was not associated with aortic arch obstruction in either group. Doppler peak instantaneous pressure gradient, with and without the expanded Bernoulli equation, weakly correlated with peak-to-peak gradient even in patients with a normal cardiac index (r=0.36, p=0.016, and r=0.49, p=0.001, respectively). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis identified an area under the curve of 0.61 for patients with all types of obstruction, with a cut-off point of 45 mmHg correctly classifying 64% of patients with arch obstruction (sensitivity 39%, specificity 89%). In patients with aortic arch reconstruction who had a cardiac index ⩾3 L/min/m2, a cut-off point of 23 mmHg correctly classified 69% of patients (71% sensitivity, 50% specificity) with an area under the curve of 0.82.

Conclusion

The non-invasive assessment of aortic obstruction remains challenging. The greatest correlation of Doppler indices was noted in patients with aortic reconstruction and a normal cardiac index.

Keywords

Arch reconstructioncoarctationDopplerpressure gradient
Type
Original Articles
Information
Cardiology in the Young , Volume 25 , Issue 7 , October 2015 , pp. 1348 - 1357
Check for updates
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Darabian, S, Zeb, I, Rezaeian, P, Razipour, A, Budoff, M. Use of noninvasive imaging in the evaluation of coarctation of aorta. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2013; 37: 75–78.Google Scholar
2. Carvalho, JS, Redington, AN, Shinebourne, EA, Rigby, ML, Gibson, D. Continuous wave Doppler echocardiography and coarctation of the aorta: gradients and flow patterns in the assessment of severity. Br Heart J 1990; 64: 133–137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Tan, JL, Babu-Narayan, SV, Henein, MY, Mullen, M, Li, W. Doppler echocardiographic profile and indexes in the evaluation of aortic coarctation in patients before and after stenting. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005; 46: 1045–1053.Google Scholar
4. Nihoyannopoulos, P, Karas, S, Sapsford, RN, Hallidie-Smith, K, Foale, R. Accuracy of two-dimensional echocardiography in the diagnosis of aortic arch obstruction. J Am Coll Cardiol 1987; 10: 1072–1077.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Cyran, SE. Coarctation of the aorta in the adolescent and adult: echocardiographic evaluation prior to and following surgical repair. Echocardiography 1993; 10: 553–563.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Houston, AB, Simpson, IA, Pollock, JC, Jamieson, MP, Doig, WB, Coleman, EN. Doppler ultrasound in the assessment of severity of coarctation of the aorta and interruption of the aortic arch. Br Heart J 1987; 57: 38–43.Google Scholar
7. Rao, PS, Carey, P. Doppler ultrasound in the prediction of pressure gradients across aortic coarctation. Am Heart J 1989; 118: 299–307.Google Scholar
8. Simpson, IA, Sahn, DJ, Valdes-Cruz, LM, Chung, KJ, Sherman, FS, Swensson, RE. Color Doppler flow mapping in patients with coarctation of the aorta: new observations and improved evaluation with color flow diameter and proximal acceleration as predictors of severity. Circulation 1988; 77: 736–744.Google Scholar
9. Giardini, A, Tacy, TA. Pressure recovery explains Doppler overestimation of invasive pressure gradient across segmental vascular stenosis. Echocardiography 2010; 27: 21–31.Google Scholar
10. Seifert, BL, DesRochers, K, Ta, M, et al. Accuracy of Doppler methods for estimating peak-to-peak and peak instantaneous gradients across coarctation of the aorta: an in vitro study. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 1999; 12: 744–753.Google Scholar
11. Aldousany, AW, DiSessa, TG, Alpert, BS, Birnbaum, SE, Willey, ES. Significance of the Doppler-derived gradient across a residual aortic coarctation. Pediatr Cardiol 1990; 11: 8–14.Google Scholar
12. 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Marx, GR, Allen, HD. Accuracy and pitfalls of Doppler evaluation of the pressure gradient in aortic coarctation. J Am Coll Cardiol 1986; 7: 1379–1385.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Wilson, N, Sutherland, GR, Gibbs, JL, Dickinson, DF, Keeton, BR. Limitations of Doppler ultrasound in the diagnosis of neonatal coarctation of the aorta. Int J Cardiol 1989; 23: 87–89.Google Scholar
15. Hill, KD, Rhodes, JF, Aiyagari, R, et al. Intervention for recoarctation in the single ventricle reconstruction trial: incidence, risk, and outcomes. Circulation 2013; 128: 954–961.Google Scholar
16. Sekar, P, Border, WL, Kimball, TR, et al. Aortic arch recoarctation after the Norwood stage I palliation: the comparative accuracy of blood pressure cuff and echocardiographic Doppler gradients in detecting significant obstruction. Congenit Heart Dis 2009; 4: 440–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Niederberger, J, Schima, H, Maurer, G, Baumgartner, H. Importance of pressure recovery for the assessment of aortic stenosis by Doppler ultrasound. Role of aortic size, aortic valve area, and direction of the stenotic jet in vitro. Circulation 1996; 94: 1934–1940.Google Scholar
18. Walker, SG, Stuth, EA. Single-ventricle physiology: perioperative implications. Semin Pediatr Surg 2004; 13: 188–202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. DeGroff, CG, Orlando, W, Shandas, R. Insights into the effect of aortic compliance on Doppler diastolic flow patterns seen in coarctation of the aorta: a numeric study. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2003; 16: 162–169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Tacy, TA, Baba, K, Cape, EG. Effect of aortic compliance on Doppler diastolic flow pattern in coarctation of the aorta. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 1999; 12: 636–642.Google Scholar
21. Tang, L, Forbes, TJ, Du, W, Zilberman, MV. Echocardiographic evaluation of pressure gradient across the stent in patients treated for coarctation of the aorta. Congenit Heart Dis 2009; 4: 269–272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Keshavarz-Motamed, Z, Garcia, J, Maftoon, N, Bedard, E, Chetaille, P, Kadem, L. A new approach for the evaluation of the severity of coarctation of the aorta using Doppler velocity index and effective orifice area: in vitro validation and clinical implications. J Biomech 2012; 45: 1239–1245.Google Scholar
23. Steffens, JC, Bourne, MW, Sakuma, H, O’Sullivan, M, Higgins, CB. Quantification of collateral blood flow in coarctation of the aorta by velocity encoded cine magnetic resonance imaging. Circulation 1994; 90: 937–943.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Barker, PC, Ensing, G, Ludomirsky, A, Bradley, DJ, Lloyd, TR, Rocchini, AP. Comparison of simultaneous invasive and noninvasive measurements of pressure gradients in congenital aortic valve stenosis. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2002; 15: 1496–1502.Google Scholar
25. Voelker, W, Reul, H, Stelzer, T, Schmidt, A, Karsch, KR. Pressure recovery in aortic stenosis: an in vitro study in a pulsatile flow model. J Am Coll Cardiol 1992; 20: 1585–1593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar