Pivotal Role of Intraoperative Transesophageal Echocardiography for Detecting Iatrogenic Aortic Regurgitation due to Cardiac Catheterization

No abstract available.

Role of Transesophageal Echocardiography in the Diagnosis of Paradoxical Low Flow, Low Gradient Severe Aortic Stenosis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Prior studies indicate that up to 35% of cases of severe aortic stenosis (AS) have paradoxical low flow, low gradient despite preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, error in left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) diameter may lead to misclassification. Herein, we determined whether measurement of LVOT diameter by transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) results in reclassification of cases to non-severe AS. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Patients with severe AS with aortic valve area (AVA) <1 cm2 by transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) within 6 months were studied. Paradoxical low flow, low gradient was defined as mean Doppler gradient (MG) <40 mm Hg and stroke volume index (SVI) ≤35 mL/m². Preserved LVEF was defined as ≥0.50. RESULTS: Among 108 patients, 12 (15%) had paradoxical low flow, low gradient severe AS despite preserved LVEF based on TTE measurement. When LVOT diameter by TEE in 2D was used, only 5 (6.3%) patients had low flow, low gradient severe AS (p<0.001). Coefficients of variability for intraobserver and interobserver measurement of LVOT were <10%. However, the limits of agreement between TTE and TEE measurement of LVOT ranged from 0.43 cm (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.36 to 0.5) to -0.31 cm (95% CI: -0.38 to -0.23). CONCLUSION: TEE measured LVOT diameter may result in reclassification to moderate AS in some patients due to low prevalence of true paradoxical low flow, low gradient (PLFLG) severe AS.

Effect of Mitral Inflow Pattern on Diagnosis of Severe Mitral Regurgitation in Patients with Chronic Organic Mitral Regurgitation

BACKGROUND: To determine sensitivity and specificity of E wave velocity in patients with severe chronic organic mitral regurgitation (MR) and normal left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) and to evaluate prevalence of A wave dominance in patients with severe MR. METHODS: We compared 35 patients with quantified severe, chronic, quantified, organic MR due to flail/prolapsed leaflets who had reparative surgery with 35 age-matched control subjects. Exclusion criteria: EF < 60%, atrial fibrillation, and more than mild aortic regurgitation. RESULTS: Mean [standard deviation (SD)] age [70 (8) years vs. 69 (8) years; p = 0.94] and mean (SD) EF [66% (6%) vs. 65% (4%); p = 0.43] were not different between the two groups. Mean (SD) E wave velocity was greater in case patients than control subjects [1.2 (0.3) m/sec vs. 0.7 (0.15) m/sec; p < 0.001]. However, E wave velocity of 1.2 m/sec had a sensitivity of only 57% [95% confidence interval (CI), 41-7 and a specificity of 100% (95% CI, 90-100%) in identifying severe MR. E wave velocity of 0.9 m/sec had a more optimal combined sensitivity (89%; 95% CI, 74-95%) and specificity (86%; 95% CI, 71-94%). A wave dominance was seen in 18% of case patients and 66% of control subjects (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: E wave velocity of 1.2 m/sec is specific not sensitive for severe organic MR; E wave velocity of 0.9 m/sec has better sensitivity and specificity. A wave dominance pattern alone cannot exclude patients with severe organic MR. Our findings highlight the importance of a comprehensive echocardiographic exam rather than relying on a few Doppler parameters in diagnosing MR.