Doppler Echocardiographic Assessment of Normally Functioning Starr-Edwards, Carbomedics and Carpentier-Edwards Valves in Aortic Position
Doppler echocardiography was performed in 168 normally functioning aortic prostheses to determine acceptable pressure gradients across the commonly used valves and to establish the relationship between valve size and gradients. There were 82 Carbomedics (C), 63 Starr-Edwards (SE), and 23 Carpentier-...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Angiology 1996-05, Vol.47 (5), p.481-489 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 489 |
---|---|
container_issue | 5 |
container_start_page | 481 |
container_title | Angiology |
container_volume | 47 |
creator | Chakraborty, Barendra Quek, Susan Ding Zee Pin Chee Tek Siong Tan Lay Kheng |
description | Doppler echocardiography was performed in 168 normally functioning aortic prostheses to determine acceptable pressure gradients across the commonly used valves and to establish the relationship between valve size and gradients. There were 82 Carbomedics (C), 63 Starr-Edwards (SE), and 23 Carpentier-Edwards (CE) valves. Peak and mean gradients across the prostheses were measured by use of the simplified Bernoulli equation. CarboMedics valve had a lower peak and mean gradient than Starr-Edwards and Carpentier-Edwards valve (P < 0.05 when compared with Starr-Edwards). The authors observed a weak inverse correlation between valve size and peak and mean gradients in CarboMedics and Carpentier-Edwards valves but not in the Starr-Edwards valve. For the CarboMedics valve the peak pressure gradient (PPG) was 26.1 ±8.2 mm Hg and the mean pressure gradient (MPG) was 14.7 ± 5.1 mm Hg; in Starr-Edwards valve the PPG was 32.8 ±9.1 mm Hg and the MPG was 19.5 ±5.6 mm Hg; in the Carpentier-Edwards valve the PPG was 28.7 ± 10.1 mm Hg and the MPG was 16.1 ± 5.2 mm Hg when size was not specified. The CarboMedics valves were noted to have a better hemodynamic profile in comparison with Starr-Edwards and Carpentier-Edwards prostheses. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1177/000331979604700507 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_78055129</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_000331979604700507</sage_id><sourcerecordid>78055129</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-7a0da3450486eea5398ea53d9e1e257348bdff0b12751b77352d36f4e2c617963</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kM1q3DAURkVomE7SvEChoFVXcSJZkmUvh-nkB4ak0CZbI8vXEwXbcnXthrxBHjsyM2RT6Ebics_3CR1CvnJ2wbnWl4wxIXihi4xJzZhi-ogseSFZwpWWn8hyBpKZ-ExOEJ_jqDjLFmSRZ1IWUi3J2w8_DC0EurFP3ppQO78LZnhylq4QAbGDfqS-oXc-dKZtX-nV1NvR-d71O_prNCEkm_olBvGcrk2ofAe1s0hNX8_zEOMOPhj6aNq_gNT1dOXDGF_56dHNdV_IcWNahLPDfUoerja_1zfJ9v76dr3aJlaIfEy0YbURUjGZZwBGiSKfz7oADqnSQuZV3TSs4qlWvNJaqLQWWSMhtRmPosQp-b7vHYL_MwGOZefQQtuaHvyEpc6ZUjwtIpjuQRs8YoCmHILrTHgtOStn_eW_-mPo26F9qqKIj8jBd9xf7vdodlA--yn08bP_a3wHaUSO1w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>78055129</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Doppler Echocardiographic Assessment of Normally Functioning Starr-Edwards, Carbomedics and Carpentier-Edwards Valves in Aortic Position</title><source>Access via SAGE</source><source>MEDLINE</source><creator>Chakraborty, Barendra ; Quek, Susan ; Ding Zee Pin ; Chee Tek Siong ; Tan Lay Kheng</creator><creatorcontrib>Chakraborty, Barendra ; Quek, Susan ; Ding Zee Pin ; Chee Tek Siong ; Tan Lay Kheng</creatorcontrib><description>Doppler echocardiography was performed in 168 normally functioning aortic prostheses to determine acceptable pressure gradients across the commonly used valves and to establish the relationship between valve size and gradients. There were 82 Carbomedics (C), 63 Starr-Edwards (SE), and 23 Carpentier-Edwards (CE) valves. Peak and mean gradients across the prostheses were measured by use of the simplified Bernoulli equation. CarboMedics valve had a lower peak and mean gradient than Starr-Edwards and Carpentier-Edwards valve (P < 0.05 when compared with Starr-Edwards). The authors observed a weak inverse correlation between valve size and peak and mean gradients in CarboMedics and Carpentier-Edwards valves but not in the Starr-Edwards valve. For the CarboMedics valve the peak pressure gradient (PPG) was 26.1 ±8.2 mm Hg and the mean pressure gradient (MPG) was 14.7 ± 5.1 mm Hg; in Starr-Edwards valve the PPG was 32.8 ±9.1 mm Hg and the MPG was 19.5 ±5.6 mm Hg; in the Carpentier-Edwards valve the PPG was 28.7 ± 10.1 mm Hg and the MPG was 16.1 ± 5.2 mm Hg when size was not specified. The CarboMedics valves were noted to have a better hemodynamic profile in comparison with Starr-Edwards and Carpentier-Edwards prostheses.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0003-3197</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1940-1574</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/000331979604700507</identifier><identifier>PMID: 8644945</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Aortic Valve ; Echocardiography, Doppler ; Female ; Heart Valve Prosthesis - classification ; Hemodynamics - physiology ; Humans ; Male ; Materials Testing ; Middle Aged</subject><ispartof>Angiology, 1996-05, Vol.47 (5), p.481-489</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-7a0da3450486eea5398ea53d9e1e257348bdff0b12751b77352d36f4e2c617963</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-7a0da3450486eea5398ea53d9e1e257348bdff0b12751b77352d36f4e2c617963</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/000331979604700507$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/000331979604700507$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,21823,27928,27929,43625,43626</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8644945$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Chakraborty, Barendra</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Quek, Susan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ding Zee Pin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chee Tek Siong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tan Lay Kheng</creatorcontrib><title>Doppler Echocardiographic Assessment of Normally Functioning Starr-Edwards, Carbomedics and Carpentier-Edwards Valves in Aortic Position</title><title>Angiology</title><addtitle>Angiology</addtitle><description>Doppler echocardiography was performed in 168 normally functioning aortic prostheses to determine acceptable pressure gradients across the commonly used valves and to establish the relationship between valve size and gradients. There were 82 Carbomedics (C), 63 Starr-Edwards (SE), and 23 Carpentier-Edwards (CE) valves. Peak and mean gradients across the prostheses were measured by use of the simplified Bernoulli equation. CarboMedics valve had a lower peak and mean gradient than Starr-Edwards and Carpentier-Edwards valve (P < 0.05 when compared with Starr-Edwards). The authors observed a weak inverse correlation between valve size and peak and mean gradients in CarboMedics and Carpentier-Edwards valves but not in the Starr-Edwards valve. For the CarboMedics valve the peak pressure gradient (PPG) was 26.1 ±8.2 mm Hg and the mean pressure gradient (MPG) was 14.7 ± 5.1 mm Hg; in Starr-Edwards valve the PPG was 32.8 ±9.1 mm Hg and the MPG was 19.5 ±5.6 mm Hg; in the Carpentier-Edwards valve the PPG was 28.7 ± 10.1 mm Hg and the MPG was 16.1 ± 5.2 mm Hg when size was not specified. The CarboMedics valves were noted to have a better hemodynamic profile in comparison with Starr-Edwards and Carpentier-Edwards prostheses.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aortic Valve</subject><subject>Echocardiography, Doppler</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Heart Valve Prosthesis - classification</subject><subject>Hemodynamics - physiology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Materials Testing</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><issn>0003-3197</issn><issn>1940-1574</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1996</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kM1q3DAURkVomE7SvEChoFVXcSJZkmUvh-nkB4ak0CZbI8vXEwXbcnXthrxBHjsyM2RT6Ebics_3CR1CvnJ2wbnWl4wxIXihi4xJzZhi-ogseSFZwpWWn8hyBpKZ-ExOEJ_jqDjLFmSRZ1IWUi3J2w8_DC0EurFP3ppQO78LZnhylq4QAbGDfqS-oXc-dKZtX-nV1NvR-d71O_prNCEkm_olBvGcrk2ofAe1s0hNX8_zEOMOPhj6aNq_gNT1dOXDGF_56dHNdV_IcWNahLPDfUoerja_1zfJ9v76dr3aJlaIfEy0YbURUjGZZwBGiSKfz7oADqnSQuZV3TSs4qlWvNJaqLQWWSMhtRmPosQp-b7vHYL_MwGOZefQQtuaHvyEpc6ZUjwtIpjuQRs8YoCmHILrTHgtOStn_eW_-mPo26F9qqKIj8jBd9xf7vdodlA--yn08bP_a3wHaUSO1w</recordid><startdate>19960501</startdate><enddate>19960501</enddate><creator>Chakraborty, Barendra</creator><creator>Quek, Susan</creator><creator>Ding Zee Pin</creator><creator>Chee Tek Siong</creator><creator>Tan Lay Kheng</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19960501</creationdate><title>Doppler Echocardiographic Assessment of Normally Functioning Starr-Edwards, Carbomedics and Carpentier-Edwards Valves in Aortic Position</title><author>Chakraborty, Barendra ; Quek, Susan ; Ding Zee Pin ; Chee Tek Siong ; Tan Lay Kheng</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-7a0da3450486eea5398ea53d9e1e257348bdff0b12751b77352d36f4e2c617963</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1996</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aortic Valve</topic><topic>Echocardiography, Doppler</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Heart Valve Prosthesis - classification</topic><topic>Hemodynamics - physiology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Materials Testing</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Chakraborty, Barendra</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Quek, Susan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ding Zee Pin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chee Tek Siong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tan Lay Kheng</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Angiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Chakraborty, Barendra</au><au>Quek, Susan</au><au>Ding Zee Pin</au><au>Chee Tek Siong</au><au>Tan Lay Kheng</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Doppler Echocardiographic Assessment of Normally Functioning Starr-Edwards, Carbomedics and Carpentier-Edwards Valves in Aortic Position</atitle><jtitle>Angiology</jtitle><addtitle>Angiology</addtitle><date>1996-05-01</date><risdate>1996</risdate><volume>47</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>481</spage><epage>489</epage><pages>481-489</pages><issn>0003-3197</issn><eissn>1940-1574</eissn><abstract>Doppler echocardiography was performed in 168 normally functioning aortic prostheses to determine acceptable pressure gradients across the commonly used valves and to establish the relationship between valve size and gradients. There were 82 Carbomedics (C), 63 Starr-Edwards (SE), and 23 Carpentier-Edwards (CE) valves. Peak and mean gradients across the prostheses were measured by use of the simplified Bernoulli equation. CarboMedics valve had a lower peak and mean gradient than Starr-Edwards and Carpentier-Edwards valve (P < 0.05 when compared with Starr-Edwards). The authors observed a weak inverse correlation between valve size and peak and mean gradients in CarboMedics and Carpentier-Edwards valves but not in the Starr-Edwards valve. For the CarboMedics valve the peak pressure gradient (PPG) was 26.1 ±8.2 mm Hg and the mean pressure gradient (MPG) was 14.7 ± 5.1 mm Hg; in Starr-Edwards valve the PPG was 32.8 ±9.1 mm Hg and the MPG was 19.5 ±5.6 mm Hg; in the Carpentier-Edwards valve the PPG was 28.7 ± 10.1 mm Hg and the MPG was 16.1 ± 5.2 mm Hg when size was not specified. The CarboMedics valves were noted to have a better hemodynamic profile in comparison with Starr-Edwards and Carpentier-Edwards prostheses.</abstract><cop>Thousand Oaks, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>8644945</pmid><doi>10.1177/000331979604700507</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0003-3197 |
ispartof | Angiology, 1996-05, Vol.47 (5), p.481-489 |
issn | 0003-3197 1940-1574 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_78055129 |
source | Access via SAGE; MEDLINE |
subjects | Adolescent Adult Aged Aortic Valve Echocardiography, Doppler Female Heart Valve Prosthesis - classification Hemodynamics - physiology Humans Male Materials Testing Middle Aged |
title | Doppler Echocardiographic Assessment of Normally Functioning Starr-Edwards, Carbomedics and Carpentier-Edwards Valves in Aortic Position |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-17T06%3A11%3A21IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Doppler%20Echocardiographic%20Assessment%20of%20Normally%20Functioning%20Starr-Edwards,%20Carbomedics%20and%20Carpentier-Edwards%20Valves%20in%20Aortic%20Position&rft.jtitle=Angiology&rft.au=Chakraborty,%20Barendra&rft.date=1996-05-01&rft.volume=47&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=481&rft.epage=489&rft.pages=481-489&rft.issn=0003-3197&rft.eissn=1940-1574&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/000331979604700507&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E78055129%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=78055129&rft_id=info:pmid/8644945&rft_sage_id=10.1177_000331979604700507&rfr_iscdi=true |