Use of the ejection fraction-velocity ratio in the hemodynamic assessment of aortic bioprosthetic valves.

BACKGROUND: A new echocardiographic severity index of aortic valve stenosis has been recently introduced: the ejection fraction-velocity ratio (EFVR), which is a simple ratio ejection fraction/4Vmax2. This nonflow corrected index demonstrated an excellent accuracy in quantifying the effective orifice area (EOA) in native aortic valves. There is no information about the reliability of EFVR in assessing aortic EOA in patients with bioprostheses. METHODS: In 141 consecutive patients with aortic bioprostheses (85 males, mean age 74 +/- 9 years), EOA was calculated by both continuity equation (CE) and EFVR. RESULTS: The correlation between CE and EFVR was highly significant (r = 0.88; P < 0.0001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was 0.97 (considering a positive case CE < 1.0 cm2, best cutoff of EFVR was <1.06). Using CE as gold standard and a cutoff of 1.0 for both indexes, EFVR showed good sensitivity (80%) and specificity (98%). Also in a subgroup of 46 patients with moderate or severe mitral regurgitation, the EFVR had a good diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity 89%, specificity 97%). In 91 patients with ejection fraction < or = 50%, the EFVR confirmed good sensitivity (79%) and specificity (97%). CONCLUSIONS: The EFVR, a simple and not time-consuming index, demonstrated a good diagnostic accuracy in assessing EOA also in patients with aortic bioprostheses. The presence of moderate to severe mitral regurgitation or left ventricular dysfunction does not reduce significantly the reliability of this new index. The EFVR can be taken into consideration in the clinical practice, at least when CE measurements are technically difficult.

Progression of aortic valve sclerosis and aortic valve stenosis: what is the role of statin treatment?

BACKGROUND: It has recently been suggested that statins could slow the progression of aortic stenosis, but this hypothesis has not been validated in large series. Moreover, there is little information about the role of statin treatment in patients with aortic valve sclerosis. METHODS: From our database 1988--2002, we retrospectively identified 1136 consecutive patients with aortic valve sclerosis (peak aortic velocity [Vmax] > 1.5 and < 2 m/s), or mild to moderate aortic stenosis (Vmax 2.0-3.9 m/s) and with > or = 2 echocardiographic studies > or = 6 months apart; 121 (11 %) were treated with statins. As a control group we randomly selected 121 age-gender-matched patients not treated with statins, with similar initial Vmax. RESULTS: The mean follow-up duration was 54+/-34 months in the statin group, and 50+/-33 months in controls (p = 0.35). There were no differences between statin-treated patients and controls with respect to age, gender, and prevalence of hypertension. More patients in the statin group had documented hypercholesterolemia, diabetes, or had proven coronary artery disease. Overall, the rate of change of Vmax was not different between statin-treated patients and controls (0.13+/-0.24 vs 0.14+/-0.19 m/s/year, p = 0.72). However, in the subgroup of patients with aortic valve sclerosis (n = 52, 26 statin-treated, 26 controls), the rate of change of Vmax was significantly lower in statin-treated patients (0.04+/-0.04 vs 0.08+/-0.06 m/s/year, p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: The results of our retrospective study show that statins could be beneficial in retarding the progression of valvular aortic sclerosis to aortic stenosis. This suggests that statins retard the progression of aortic valve lesion in its early stage, a finding that may have important implications in the management of this very common disease.