PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Miyake, Y
AU  - Hozumi, T
AU  - Mori, I
AU  - Sugioka, K
AU  - Yamamuro, A
AU  - Akasaka, T
AU  - Homma, S
AU  - Yoshida, K
AU  - Yoshikawa, J
TI  - Automated quantification of aortic regurgitant volume and regurgitant fraction using the digital colour Doppler velocity profile integration method in patients with aortic regurgitation
AID  - 10.1136/heart.88.5.481
DP  - 2002 Nov 01
TA  - Heart
PG  - 481--484
VI  - 88
IP  - 5
4099  - http://heart.bmj.com/content/88/5/481.short
4100  - http://heart.bmj.com/content/88/5/481.full
SO  - Heart2002 Nov 01; 88
AB  - Background: The recently introduced automated cardiac flow measurement (ACM) technique provides a quick and an accurate automated calculation of stroke volume and cardiac output. This is obtained by spatio-temporal integration of digital Doppler velocity profile data. Objective: To evaluate the use of the ACM method in the non-invasive assessment of aortic regurgitant volume and per cent regurgitant fraction (%RF) in patients with aortic regurgitation. Methods: Aortic outflow volume and mitral inflow volume were calculated by the ACM method in 22 patients with isolated aortic regurgitation. Aortic regurgitant volume and %RF were calculated using the following equations: aortic regurgitant volume = [aortic outflow volume] − [mitral inflow volume]; %RF = [aortic regurgitant volume]/[aortic outflow volume] × 100. The results were compared with those obtained using pulsed Doppler cross sectional echocardiography (PD-2D). Results: Aortic regurgitant volumes measured by the ACM method showed a good correlation with the PD-2D measurements (r = 0.95, y = 0.9x + 3.9, SEE = 8.6 ml); the mean (SD) difference between the two methods was −1.5 (8.5) ml. %RF estimated by the ACM method also correlated well with the values obtained by the PD-2D method (r = 0.91, y = 0.9x + 4.9, SEE = 6.0%); the mean difference between the two methods was −1.5 (6.0)%. Total time required for aortic regurgitant volume (for one cardiac cycle) by the ACM method was significantly shorter than by the PD-2D method (130 (16) v 230 (32) s, p < 0.01). Conclusions: The newly developed the ACM method is quick and accurate in the automated assessment of aortic regurgitant volume and per cent regurgitant fraction in patients with isolated aortic regurgitation.