JOURNAL HOME CME HOME THIS MONTH PAST ISSUES ETOC COLLECTIONS
AUTHORS REVIEWERS EDITORIAL BOARD FEEDBACK RSS HELP
A&A International Anesthesia Research Society
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Popescu, W. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Popescu, W. M.

Anesth Analg 2006;102:654
© 2006 International Anesthesia Research Society
doi: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000190796.05346.AD


LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Ghost-Boostering Phantom Gradients

Wanda M. Popescu, MD

Department of Anesthesiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, wcp7{at}email.med.yale.edu

In Response:

Souza implies, erroneously, that adequate preoperative consultation was not obtained and technical deficiencies were present in the echocardiographic examinations. The perioperative management of the patient followed the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Practice Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Valvular Heart Disease (1). Two teams of echocardiographers (referring cardiologist and university cardiologists), as well as a cardiovascular radiologist, participated in the care and imaging strategies for this patient. Although a Pedoff transducer is useful, as outlined by Souza, the cardiologists felt the echocardiographic examination met the needs required for decision-making. With regard to the comment concerning the contribution of mitral regurgitation, Figure 2B clearly shows an aortic stenosis Doppler envelope. As a matter of fact postoperatively, with no mitral regurgitation present (s/p mitral valve replacement) the maximal velocity and pressure gradient across the aortic valve was the same. It is uncertain which assumptions Souza made and how he arrived at his approximation of aortic valve area. By use of three different techniques (the continuity equation, planimetry, and cardiac catheterization) the aortic valve area was approximately 1 cm2. We felt that this case represents a relatively common problem (differences between echocardiography and cardiac catheterization data) seen when dealing with potential aortic stenosis. We attempted to briefly review this topic and provide some direction to physicians who encounter this situation.

Reference

  1. ACC/AHA Practice Guidelines: Guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease. Circulation 1998;98:1949-84.[Free Full Text]




This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Popescu, W. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Popescu, W. M.


Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins Anesthesia & Analgesia® is published for the International Anesthesia Research Society® by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press®. Copyright 2006 by the International Anesthesia Research Society. Online ISSN: 1526-7598   Print ISSN: 0003-2999 HighWire Press