Simultaneous Determination of Aortic Valve Area by the Gorlin Formula and by Transesophageal Echocardiography Under Different Transvalvular Flow Conditions

Objectives. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of changes in flow on aortic valve area (AVA) as measured by the Gorlin formula and transesophageal echocardiographic (TEE) planimetry. Background. The meaning of flow-related changes in AVA calculations using the Gorlin formula in patients with aortic stenosis remains controversial. It has been suggested that flow dependence of the calculated area could be due to a true widening of the orifice as flow increases or to a disproportionate flow dependence of the formula itself. Alternatively, anatomic AVA can be measured by direct planimetry of the valve orifice with TEE. Methods. Simultaneous measurement of the planimetered and Gorlin valve area was performed intraoperatively under different hemodynamic conditions in 11 patients. Left ventricular and ascending aortic pressures were measured simultaneously after transventricular and aortic punctures. Changes in flow were induced by dobutamine infusion. Using multiplane TEE, AVA was planimetered at the level of the leaflet tips in the short-axis view. Results. Overall, cardiac output, stroke volume and transvalvular volume flow rate ranged from 2.5 to 7.3 liters/min, from 43 to 86 ml and from 102 to 306 ml/min, respectively. During dobutamine infusion, cardiac output increased by 42% and mean aortic valve gradient by 54%. When minimal flow was compared with maximal flow, the Gorlin area varied from (mean ± SD) 0.44 ± 0.12 to 0.60 ± 0.14 cm2(p Conclusions. By simultaneous determination of Gorlin formula and TEE planimetry valve areas, we showed that acute changes in transvalvular volume flow substantially altered valve area calculated by the Gorlin formula but did not result in significant alterations of the anatomic valve area in aortic stenosis. These results suggest that the flow-related variation in the Gorlin AVA is due to a disproportionate flow dependence of the formula itself and not a true change in valve area. (J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;29:1296–302)