4.1 Article

Measurement of Aortic Valve Coaptation and Effective Height Using Echocardiography in Patients with Ventricular Septal Defects and Aortic Valve Prolapse

Journal

PEDIATRIC CARDIOLOGY
Volume 38, Issue 3, Pages 608-616

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00246-016-1555-8

Keywords

Congenital heart disease; Ventricular septal defects; Aortic regurgitation; Aortic cusp; Coaptation height

Funding

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [17K09483] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Decreased coaptation height in adults has been identified as a marker of early valve failure. We evaluated aortic valve coaptation and effective height in healthy children and in children with a ventricular septal defect (VSD) with aortic cusp prolapse (ACP), using echocardiography. We included 45 subjects with VSD with ACP, 27 did not develop aortic regurgitation (AR) by ACP and 18 developed AR by ACP, and 83 healthy children as controls. Aortic root anatomy was estimated using the parasternal long-axis view. We measured the diameter of aortic valve (AV), coaptation height (CH), and effective height (EH) of the aortic valve. We defined the ACH (CH/AV ratio) and AEH (EH/AV ratio) indices as follows: ACHindex(%)= CH/AV x100, AEHindex(%)= EH/AV x100. There were significant differences in ACH and AEH between the groups (control vs VSD with ACP vs VSD with ACP and AR, median ACH [%], 35.1 vs 32.0 vs 22.1; median AEH [%], 52.0 vs 48.0 vs 34.4, respectively; P < 0.01]). Intracardiac repair (ICR) was performed in 15 cases. Significant increases were observed in ACH and AEH before and after ICR (median ACH [%], before: 27.0, after: 32.7, P < 0.05; median AEH (%), before 38.5, after 45.8, P < 0.05). Measurement of ACH and AEH may allow direct and non-invasive assessment of the severity of VSD with ACP, which could aid clinicians in determining the need and timing for surgical intervention.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available