Advertisement

Echo and doppler controlled behavior of aortic ATS valve comparison with the aortic SJM

  • Jean-Pierre Villemot
  • P. Perlot
  • J. P. Carteaux
  • N. Salti
  • N. Bischoff
  • K. Tzvetanov
Conference paper

Abstract

Prosthetic mechanical valves differ from one another in regard to several characteristics including mainly thrombogenicity and hemodynamic profile. The ATS heart valve prosthesis is a bileaflet Pyrolite carbon heart valve that is nearly identical to the St. Jude prosthesis (SJM). ATS is different from the SJM prosthesis in some ways including valve pivot design and absence of pivot guards. It is, thus, a second generation bileaflet prosthesis and as such merits it to be compared with the SJM in terms of hemodynamic performance. The aim of the study was to compare at the 10th post operative day and 180th post operative day the echocardiographic assessment of implanted aortic valve prosthesis (ATS versus SJM).

Keywords

Performance Index Prosthetic Valve Left Ventricular Outflow Tract 10th Post Maximal Gradient 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Burstow D, Nishimura R, Bailey K et al. (1989) Continuous wave Doppler echocardiographic measurement of prosthetic valve gradients: a simultaneous Doppler-Catheter correlative study. Circulation 80: 504–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chafizadeh ER, Zaghbi WA (1991) Doppler echocardiographic assessment of the Saint-Jude medical prosthetic valve in the aortic position using the continuity equation. Circulation 83: 213–23PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Grigg L, Fulop J, Daniel L, Weisel R, Rakowski H (1990) Doppler echocardiographic assessment of prosthetic heart valves. Echocardiography 7: 97–114PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Heldman D, Gardin J (1989) Evaluation of prosthetic valves by Doppler echocardiography. Echocardiography 6: 63–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Oh JK, Tacliercio CP, Holmes DR et al. (1988) Prediction of the severity of aortic stenosis by Doppler aortic valve area determination: prospective Doppler-catheterization correlation in 100 patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 11: 1227–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Oto C, Pearlman AS, Comess KA, Reamer RP, Janko CL, Huntsman LL (1986) Determination of the stenotic aortic valve area in adults using Doppler echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 7: 509–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Dr. Dietrich Steikopff Verlag GmbH & Co. KG, Darmstadt 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean-Pierre Villemot
    • 1
    • 2
  • P. Perlot
    • 1
  • J. P. Carteaux
    • 1
  • N. Salti
    • 1
  • N. Bischoff
    • 1
  • K. Tzvetanov
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Cardiac SurgeryCHU Nancy FranceFrance
  2. 2.CHU BraboisVandoeuvre Les NanceyFrance

Personalised recommendations