Show simple item record

Doppler evaluation of homograft valved conduits in children

dc.contributor.authorMeliones, Jon N.en_US
dc.contributor.authorSnider, A. Rebeccaen_US
dc.contributor.authorBove, Edward L.en_US
dc.contributor.authorSerwer, Gerald A.en_US
dc.contributor.authorPeters, Janeen_US
dc.contributor.authorLacina, Samuel J.en_US
dc.contributor.authorFlorentine, Michael S.en_US
dc.contributor.authorRosenthal, Amnonen_US
dc.date.accessioned2006-04-07T20:44:50Z
dc.date.available2006-04-07T20:44:50Z
dc.date.issued1989-08-01en_US
dc.identifier.citationMeliones, Jon N., Snider, A. Rebecca, Bove, Edward L., Serwer, Gerald A., Peters, Jane, Lacina, Samuel J., Florentine, Michael S., Rosenthal, Amnon (1989/08/01)."Doppler evaluation of homograft valved conduits in children." The American Journal of Cardiology 64(5): 354-358. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/27831>en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6T10-4C708Y5-PT/2/12186d7d304290fafab942fab9883e9aen_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/27831
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=2756881&dopt=citationen_US
dc.description.abstractTo assess the flow characteristics of homograft valved conduits in the immediate postoperative period, 69 children with 71 homograft conduits underwent 2-dimensional and Doppler echocardiographic examination at 1 to 40 days (mean 8) after surgery. Of the 71 conduits studied, 19 were aortic and 52 were pulmonary homograft valved conduits. Two aortic homograft valved conduits were inserted in the aortic position, whereas all remaining homografts were placed in the pulmonary position. On the immediate postoperative echocardiogram, 25 (35%) of the conduit valves had no regurgitation and 44 (62%) had 1+ (mild) regurgitation. Two pulmonary valved conduits (3%) in the pulmonary position had 2+ (moderate) regurgitation and right ventricular dimensions &gt;95% for body surface area. The peak velocity across the homograft valve was normal (2.6 m/s in the immediate postoperative period.To assess the fate of homograft valved conduits in the intermediate-term follow-up period, 38 children with 38 conduits had a repeat echocardiogram at 6 to 25 months (mean 15 +/- 6) after surgery. Of the 38 conduits examined, 10 (26%) had no regurgitation, 25 (66%) had 1+ regurgitation and 3 (8%) had 2+ regurgitation. Progression of the amount of regurgitation occurred in 11 (29%) patients.At the follow-up examination, peak velocity was 2.6 m/s across 1 valve. This latter patient had a 3.2-m/s jet across the proximal insertion of the conduit and no further increase across the valve itself. Thus, no patient had evidence of conduit valve stenosis. Of the 38 patients, 9 had Doppler evidence of obstruction at the conduit insertion (8 at the distal end and 1 with the aforementioned proximal obstruction). Most obstructions were of mild to moderate severity and only 2 patients (5%) had severe conduit stenosis.Thus, in the immediate postoperative period, normally functioning homograft valved conduits frequently have mild regurgitation (62%) and rarely have moderate or severe regurgitation (3%), with peak velocities reaching Thus, in the immediate postoperative period, normally functioning homograft valved conduits frequently have mild regurgitation (62%) and rarely have moderate or severe regurgitation (3%), with peak velocities reaching &lt;2.6 m/s. In the intermediate follow-up period, homograft valved conduits may develop an additional degree of regurgitation (29%), frequently continue to have conduit peak velocities &lt;2.6 m/s (97%) and uncommonly develop hemodynamically significant obstruction, usually at the ends of the conduit (5%).en_US
dc.format.extent644432 bytes
dc.format.extent3118 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherElsevieren_US
dc.titleDoppler evaluation of homograft valved conduits in childrenen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelInternal Medicine and Specialtiesen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumButterworth Hospital, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA; Departments of Pediatrics and Surgery, C.S. Mott Children's Hospital, University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, USA.en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartments of Pediatrics and Surgery, C.S. Mott Children's Hospital, University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, USA; Butterworth Hospital, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA.en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumButterworth Hospital, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA; Departments of Pediatrics and Surgery, C.S. Mott Children's Hospital, University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, USA.en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumButterworth Hospital, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA; Departments of Pediatrics and Surgery, C.S. Mott Children's Hospital, University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, USA.en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumButterworth Hospital, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA; Departments of Pediatrics and Surgery, C.S. Mott Children's Hospital, University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, USA.en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumButterworth Hospital, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA; Departments of Pediatrics and Surgery, C.S. Mott Children's Hospital, University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, USA.en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumButterworth Hospital, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA; Departments of Pediatrics and Surgery, C.S. Mott Children's Hospital, University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, USA.en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumButterworth Hospital, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA; Departments of Pediatrics and Surgery, C.S. Mott Children's Hospital, University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, USA.en_US
dc.identifier.pmid2756881en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/27831/1/0000237.pdfen_US
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0002-9149(89)90534-1en_US
dc.identifier.sourceThe American Journal of Cardiologyen_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.