Perfil clínico e hemodinâmico de pacientes consecutivos com estenose aórtica valvar estudados na era pré-implante transcateter valvar aórtico em instituição acadêmica. Análise comparativa da avaliação invasiva com a ecocardiográfica / Clinical and hemodynamic profile of consecutive patients with aortic valve stenosis studied in the pre-transcatheter aortic valve implantation era at an academic institution. Comparative analysis of invasive evaluation with echocardiography
Amostra populacional de 49 homens e 47 mulheres, com mediana de idade de 66,5 (56,5 a 72,8) anos, estenose valvar aórtica degenerativa em 49% e reumática em 40%, além de diversas comorbidades, inclusive doença coronária (37%). Pelo cateterismo, com base no gradiente pico de 48 (20 a 68), a estenose valvar aórtica foi avaliada como grave em 56%, sendo a pressão telediastólica ventricular de 20mmHg (16 a 30mmHg). Pela ecocardiografia, a área valvar foi 0,9cm2 (0,7 a 1,2cm2), sendo indexado 0,5cm2/m2 (0,43 a 0,5cm2/m2), com gradiente pico de 62±26 mmHg. A estenose valvar aórtica foi considerada severa em 69,2%. Houve discordância entre os métodos sobre a severidade da estenose valvar aórtica em 30% dos exames, com coeficiente de Spearman entre área valvar pelo ecocardiograma e gradiente pico pelo cateterismo de -0,7 (p<0,001).
Conclusão:
Em amostra representativa dos vários padrões hemodinâmicos, a avaliação da gravidade da estenose valvar aórtica, como praticada rotineiramente em laboratório acadêmico, limitou-se à medida de pico de gradiente transvalvar. A estimativa da área valvar pelo método ecocardiográfico, sendo indireta e também passível de crítica, contribui para as discrepâncias encontradas, tornando-se justificável buscar o aperfeiçoamento de ambos os métodos, em vista da complexidade clínica e hemodinâmica detectada.
A population sample of 49 men and 47 women, with a median age of 66.5 (56.5 to 72.8) years, degenerative aortic valve stenosis in 49%, and rheumatic aortic stenosis in 40%, in addition to several comorbidities, including coronary disease (37%). Using catheterization, based on the peak gradient of 48 (20 to 68), aortic valve stenosis was assessed as severe in 56%, with ventricular end-diastolic pressure of 20mmHg (16 to 30mmHg). Using echocardiography, the valve area was 0.9cm2 (0.7 to 1.2cm2), indexed valve area was 0.5cm2/m2 (0.43 to 0.5cm2/m2), with peak gradient of 62±26mmHg. Aortic valve stenosis was considered severe in 69.2%. There was disagreement between the methods regarding severity of aortic valve stenosis in 30% of exams, with a Spearman coefficient between the valve area on the echocardiogram and the peak gradient on catheterization of -0.7 (p<0.001).
Conclusion:
In a representative sample of various hemodynamic patterns, the assessment of severity of aortic valve stenosis, as routinely practiced in an academic laboratory, was limited to measuring the peak transvalvular gradient. The estimation of the valve area using the echocardiographic method was indirect and also subject to criticism, and contributed to the discrepancies found, rendering it justifiable to seek the improvement of both methods, in view of the clinical and hemodynamic complexity detected.