Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Evaluating the hemodynamic performance of aortic valve prostheses has relied primarily on echocardiography. This involves calculating the trans-prosthetic valve mean gradient (MG) and aortic valve area (AVA), and assessing for valvular and paravalvular regurgitation in a fashion similar to the native aortic valve. In conjunction with other echocardiographic and nonechocardiographic parameters, MG and AVA are used to distinguish between prosthesis stenosis, prosthesis patient mismatch, pressure recovery, increased flow, and measurement errors. This review will discuss the principles and limitations of echocardiographic evaluation of aortic valve prosthesis following surgical, and transcatheter aortic valve replacement and in comparison to invasive hemodynamics through illustrative clinical cases.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/echo.14663 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!