Risk of supranormal left ventricular ejection fraction in patients with aortic stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular events are increasing in patients with supranormal left ventricular ejection fraction (snLVEF). However, the effect of snLVEF in patients with aortic stenosis (AS) remains unclear, especially in patients with moderate AS. HYPOTHESIS: This study aimed to evaluate the prognosis of mortality and heart failure (HF) in patients with LVEF ≥ 50% and moderate or severe AS. METHODS: This retrospective study targeted patients with moderate or severe AS and LVEF > 50%. LVEF of 50%-65% was classified as normal LVEF (nLVEF, nEF group) and >65% as snLVEF (snEF group). AS severity was stratified based on the aortic valve area into moderate (1.0-1.5 cm²) and severe (<1.0 cm²). Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization. RESULTS: A total of 226 participants were included in this study. There were 67 and 65 participants with moderate AS in snEF (m-snEF) and nEF groups (m-nEF), respectively, and 41 and 53 participants with severe AS in the snEF (s-snEF) and nEF groups (s-nEF), respectively. During the observation period (median: 554 days), the primary composite outcome occurred in 108 individuals. Cox hazard analysis revealed no significant differences among the four groups in primary composite outcomes. With respect to HF hospitalization, the adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) with m-snEF as the reference were as follows: m-nEF, 0.41 (0.19-0.89); s-nEF, 1.43 (0.76-2.67); and s-snEF, 1.83 (1.00-3.35). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of HF hospitalization for m-snLVEF was higher than m-nLVEF and not significantly different from s-nLVEF.

An alternative method of indexation in aortic stenosis: height-adjusted effective orifice area : An observational prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Although indexing effective orifice area (EOA) by body surface area (BSA) is recommended, this method has several disadvantages, since it corrects by acquired fatty tissue. Our aim was to analyze the value of EOA normalized by height for predicting cardiovascular outcome in patients with aortic stenosis (AS). METHODS: Patients with AS (peak velocity > 2 m/s) evaluated in our echocardiography laboratory between January 2015 and June 2018 were prospectively enrolled. EOA was indexed by BSA and height. A composite primary endpoint was defined as cardiac death or aortic valve replacement. A receiver operating characteristic curve was plotted to determine the best cutoff value of EOA/height for predicting cardiovascular events. RESULTS: Four-hundred and fifteen patients were included (52% women, mean age 74.8 ± 11.6 years). Area under the curve was similar for EOA/BSA (AUC 0.75, p < 0.001) and EOA/height (AUC 0.75, p < 0.001). A cutoff value of 0.60 cm2/m for EOA/height had a sensitivity of 84%, specificity of 61%, positive predictive value of 60% and negative predictive value of 84%. One-year survival from primary endpoint was significantly lower in patients with EOA/height ≤ 0.60 cm2/m (48 ± 5% vs 91 ± 4%, log-rank p < 0.001) than EOA/height > 0.60 cm2/m. The excess of risk of cardiovascular events seen in univariate analysis persists even after adjustment for other demonstrated adverse prognostic variables (HR 5.91, 95% CI 3.21-10.88, p < 0.001). In obese patients, there was an excess of risk in patients with EOA/height < 0.60 cm2/m (HR 10.2, 95% CI 3.5-29.5, p < 0.001), but not in EOA/BSA < 0.60 cm2/m2 (HR 0.14, 95% CI 0.14-1.4, p = 0.23). CONCLUSIONS: We could identify a subgroup of patients with AS at high risk of cardiovascular events. Consequently, we recommend using EOA/height as a method of indexation in AS, especially in obese patients, with a cutoff of 0.60 cm2/m for identifying patients with higher cardiovascular risk.

The Use of Contrast May Improve Aortic Valve Assessment During Transesophageal Echocardiography.

OBJECTIVES: The Doppler profile that quantifies the degree of aortic stenosis is essential, as an inaccurate measurement can alter the surgical plan. The authors aimed to examine the level of agreement between the contrast and noncontrast methods of aortic valve sizing during intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). SETTING: At a tertiary hospital. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 30 patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement for a stenotic valve. INTERVENTIONS: Perflutren lipid microsphere contrast injection. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The authors reviewed Doppler studies of 30 consecutive patients undergoing aortic valve replacement in whom a contrast agent was given (perflutren lipid microsphere). They measured the peak and/or mean aortic valve gradients and velocity time integral readings through the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT), and the aortic valve before and after administering the contrast agent. The aortic valve area was then calculated using both methods. Paired t tests and Bland-Altman analyses were used to examine the bias and the level of agreement between the 2 processes. By not using a contrast agent, the aortic valve area was overestimated by 0.26 cm2 compared to those measured by transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) (p < 0.001). Using a contrast agent, TEE measurements were comparable to those obtained by TTE. Moreover, the peak and mean aortic valve gradients were underestimated by 19 and 11 mmHg, respectively (p value <0.001). Adding contrast did not affect the pulse-wave Doppler readings of the V1 velocity of the LVOT. CONCLUSION: This discrepancy is significant and could affect the decision to replace the aortic valve. When evaluating the aortic valve with TEE, the authors recommend using a contrast agent to improve the Doppler profile and to obtain a more accurate measurement of the aortic valve area.

Serial changes of coronary flow reserve over one year after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with severe aortic stenosis.

Background: Impaired coronary flow reserve (CFR) portends a poor prognosis in patients with aortic stenosis. The present study aims to investigate how CFR changes over one year after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with severe aortic stenosis, and to explore factors related to the changes. Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing TAVI were registered. CFR in the left anterior descending artery was measured by transthoracic echocardiography on three occasions pre-TAVI, one-day post-TAVI, and one-year post-TAVI. Results: A total of 59 patients were enrolled, 46 of whom completed one-year follow-up. CFR was impaired in 35 (59.3%) patients pre-TAVI, but the impairment was only seen in 2 patients (4%) one-year post-TAVI. CFR value improved from 1.75 (1.50-2.10) cm/s pre-TAVI, to 2.00 (1.70-2.30) one-day post-TAVI, and further to 2.60 (2.30-3.10) one-year post-TAVI (P < 0.001). The median difference in CFR between pre-TAVI and one-year post-TAVI was 0.90 (0.53-1.20). Patients with significant improvement of CFR (more than the median value of 0.9) had larger aortic valve area (1.55 [1.38-1.92] vs. 1.36 cm2 [1.26-1.69], P = 0.042) and greater improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (3.10 [-1.67-4.24] vs. -1.46 [-3.42-1.48] percentage points, P = 0.019) than those without. Conclusions: CFR is impaired in a considerable proportion of patients with severe aortic stenosis, but improvement is seen immediately after TAVI, and one year later. Patients with significant improvement of CFR had larger aortic valve area and greater increase in left ventricular ejection fraction after TAVI.

Calculation of Aortic VAlve and LVOT Areas by a Modified Continuity Equation Using Different Echocardiography Methods: The CAVALIER Study.

BACKGROUND: The area of the left ventricular outflow tract (ALVOT) represents a major component of the continuity equation (CE), which is, i.a., crucial to calculate the aortic valve (AV) area (AAV). The ALVOT is typically calculated using 2D echo assessments as the measured anterior-posterior (a/p) extension, assuming a round LVOT base. Anatomically, however, usually an elliptical shape of the LVOT base is present, with the long diameter extending from the medial-lateral axis (m/l), which is not recognized by two-dimensional (2D) echocardiography. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare standard and three-dimensional (3D)-echocardiography-derived ALVOT calculation and its use in a standard CE (CEstd) and a modified CE (CEmod) to calculate the AAV vs. computed tomography (CT) multi-planar reconstruction (MPR) measurements of the anatomical ALVOT, and AAV, respectively. METHODS: Patients were selected if 3D transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), 3D transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), and cardiac CT were all performed, and imaging quality was adequate. The ALVOT was assessed using 2D calculation, (a/p only), 3D-volume MPR, and 3D-biplane calculation (a/p and m/l). AAV was measured using both CEstd and CEmod, and 3D-volume MPR. Data were compared to corresponding CT analyses. RESULTS: From 2017 to 2018, 107 consecutive patients with complete and adequate imaging data were included. The calculated ALVOT was smaller when assessed by 2D- compared to both 3D-volume MPR and 3D-biplane calculation. Calculated AAV was correspondingly smaller in CEstd compared to CEmod or 3D-volume MPR. The ALVOT and AAV, using data from 3D echocardiography, highly correlated and were congruent with corresponding measurements in CT. CONCLUSION: Due to the elliptic shape of the LVOT, use of measurements and calculations based on 2D echocardiography systematically underestimates the ALVOT and dependent areas, such as the AAV. Anatomically correct assessment can be achieved using 3D echocardiography and adapted calculations, such as CEmod.

Rationale and design of SAVI-AoS: A physiologic study of patients with symptomatic moderate aortic valve stenosis and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction.

Background: Moderate aortic valve stenosis occurs twice as often as severe aortic stenosis (AS) and carries a similarly poor prognosis. Current European and American guidelines offer limited insight into moderate AS (MAS) patients with unexplained symptoms. Measuring valve physiology at rest while most patients experience symptoms during exertion might represent a conceptual limitation in the current grading of AS severity. The stress aortic valve index (SAVI) may delineate hemodynamically significant AS among patients with MAS. Objectives: To investigate the diagnostic value of SAVI in symptomatic MAS patients with normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF ≥ 50%): aortic valve area (AVA) > 1 cm2 plus either mean valve gradient (MG) 15-39 mmHg or maximal aortic valve velocity (AOV max) 2.5-3.9 m/s. Short-term objectives include associations with symptom burden, functional capacity, and cardiac biomarkers. Long-term objectives include clinical outcomes. Methods and results: Multicenter, non-blinded, observational cohort. AS severity will be graded invasively (aortic valve pressure measurements with dobutamine stress testing for SAVI) and non-invasively (echocardiography during dobutamine and exercise stress). Computed tomography (CT) of the aortic valve will be scored for calcium, and hemodynamics simulated using computational fluid dynamics. Cardiac biomarkers and functional parameters will be serially monitored. The primary objective is to see how SAVI and conventional measures (MG, AVA and Vmax) correlate with clinical parameters (quality of life survey, 6-minute walk test [6MWT], and biomarkers). Conclusions: The SAVI-AoS study will extensively evaluate patients with unexplained, symptomatic MAS to determine any added value of SAVI versus traditional, resting valve parameters.

Confirmation of Aortic Stenosis Severity in Case of Discordance Between Aortic Valve Area and Gradient.

In this report, we illustrate the different flow-gradient patterns of aortic stenosis associated with discordant grading of stenosis severity at transthoracic echocardiography (TTE). The discordance among TTE parameters (mean gradient and aortic area) can be reconciled and true severity can be confirmed by ruling out potential measurements errors and by using multimodality imaging. (Level of Difficulty: Advanced.).

Severe Aortic Stenosis: More Than an Imaging Diagnosis.

The definition of severe aortic stenosis has undergone significant change casting a wider net to avoid missing patients who could benefit from valve replacement. The presence or absence of symptoms remains the key decision-making element; however, individuals presently undergoing evaluation are older, more likely asymptomatic, and have lower gradients. Due to numerous potential measurement errors, attention to detail when performing diagnostic testing and understanding their limitations are necessary to render appropriate treatment. Exercise testing adds useful information for individuals with severe aortic stenosis felt to be asymptomatic. Dobutamine echocardiography, in low flow-low gradient aortic stenosis, distinguishes between a myopathic and valvular cause of left ventricular dysfunction. Evaluation of patients when normotensive minimizes measurement errors. The amount of aortic valve calcification adds useful information when the degree of aortic stenosis is uncertain. A good history and physical integrated with high-quality imaging data allows for appropriate clinical treatment decisions for patients with aortic stenosis. The goal is simultaneously to provide aortic valve replacement for patients in need while avoiding overdiagnosis and performance of unnecessary procedures.

Assessment of aortic valve area on cardiac computed tomography in symptomatic bicuspid aortic stenosis: Utility and differences from Doppler echocardiography.

Background: In this study, we investigate the utility of geometric orifice area (GOA) on cardiac computed tomography (CT) and differences from effective orifice area (EOA) on Doppler echocardiography in patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis (AS). Methods: A total of 163 patients (age 64 ± 10 years, 56.4% men) with symptomatic bicuspid AS who were referred for surgery and underwent both cardiac CT and echocardiography within 3 months were studied. To calculate the aortic valve area, GOACT was measured by multiplanar CT planimetry, and EOAEcho was calculated by the continuity equation with Doppler echocardiography. The relationships between GOACT and EOAEcho and patient symptom scale, biomarkers, and left ventricular (LV) functional variables were analyzed. Results: There was a significant but modest correlation between EOAEcho and GOACT (r = 0.604, p < 0.001). Both EOAEcho and GOACT revealed significant correlations with mean pressure gradient and peak transaortic velocity, and the coefficients were higher in EOAEcho than in GOACT. EOAEcho of 1.05 cm2 and GOACT of 1.25 cm2 corresponds to hemodynamic cutoff values for diagnosing severe AS. EOAEcho was well correlated with the patient symptom scale and log NT-pro BNP, but GOACT was not. In addition, EOAEcho had a higher correlation coefficient with estimated LV filling pressure and LV global longitudinal strain than GOACT. Conclusion: GOACT can be used to evaluate the severity of bicuspid AS. The threshold for GOACT for diagnosing severe AS should be higher than that for EOAEcho. However, EOAEcho is still the method of choice because EOAEcho showed better correlations with clinical and functional variables than GOACT.

Severe aortic stenosis echocardiographic thresholds revisited.

BACKGROUND: In view of inconsistencies in threshold values of severe aortic stenosis (AS) hemodynamic indices, it is unclear what is the relative contribution of each variable in a binary classification of AS based on aortic valve replacement (AVR) indication. We aimed to assess relative discriminative value and optimal threshold of each constituent hemodynamic parameter for this classification and confirm additional prognostic value. METHODS: Echocardiography studies of 168 patients with ≥ moderate AS were included. AS types were dichotomized into Group-A, comprising moderate and Normal-Flow Low-Gradient (NFLG), and Group-B, comprising High-Gradient(HG), Low Ejection Fraction Low-Flow Low-Gradient(Low EF-LFLG), and Paradoxical Low-Flow Low-Gradient(PLFLG) AS. Aortic valve area (AVA), Doppler velocity index (DVI), peak aortic velocity, mean gradient, stroke volume index and transaortic flow rate(TFR) were assessed for A/B Group discrimination value and optimal thresholds were determined. Dichotomized values were assessed for predictive value for AVR or death. RESULTS: C-statistic values for binary AS classification was .74-.9 for the tested variables. AVA and DVI featured the highest score, and SVI the lowest one. AVA≤.81 cm2 and DVI≤.249 had 87.6% and 86% respective sensitivity for Group B patients, and a similar specificity of 80.9%. During a mean follow-up of 9.1±10.1 months, each of the tested dichotomized variables except for SVI predicted AVR or death on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: An AVA value ≤.81 cm2 or a DVI ≤ .249 threshold carry the highest discriminative value for severe AS in patients with aortic stenosis, translating into an independent prognostic value, and can be helpful in making clinical decisions.

BALLOON AORTIC VALVULOPLASTY WITH VALVER BALLOON CATHETER IN ADULTS WITH SEVERE AORTIC STENOSIS AS A BRIDGE OR PALLIATIVE TREATMENT.

OBJECTIVE: The aim: We aimed to assess the feasibility and safety of performing balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) with Valver balloon catheter (Balton, Poland) in adults with severe aortic stenosis as a bridge or palliative treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Materials and methods: We identified consecutive patients who underwent BAV procedures between May 2019 and March 2020 using Valver balloon catheters. Demographic data, medical history, and clinical characteristics were retrospectively collected in all study patients together with periprocedural data as well as 12-month follow-up data. RESULTS: Results: We included 18 patients. The mean population age was 78.1±8.9 years, and women were 61.1%. The most common co-morbidities were arterial hypertension (88.9%), dyslipidemia (83.3%), and coronary artery disease (72.2%). The baseline mean aortic valve pressure gradient was 49.94±27.02 mmHg and the mean aortic valve area (AVA) was 0.65±0.20 cm2. In all cases, the procedure was performed from the femoral access via the 8F sheath. Two Valver balloon catheter sizes were used 18x40mm (33.3%) and 20x40mm (66.7%). Three periprocedural complications were observed, and none was associated with the Valver balloon catheter per se. The transthoracic echocardiography after the procedure revealed a decrease in the mean pressure gradient of 11.1±8.85 mmHg, and an increase in AVA of 0.21±0.19 cm2. At 12-month follow-up, the mortality rate was 38.9%. CONCLUSION: Conclusions: BAV is a procedure increasingly performed in catheterization laboratories worldwide. This paper confirmed the relative safety of BAV with Valver balloon catheters in the modern era, showing a low incidence of valve and vascular complications.

Comprehensive assessment of the aortic valve in critically ill patients for the non-cardiologist. Part I: Aortic stenosis of the native valve.

Aortic stenosis (AS) causes left ventricular outflow obstruction. Severe AS has major haemodynamic implications in critically ill patients, in whom increased cardiac output and oxygen delivery are often required. Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) plays a key role in the AS severity grading. In this review, we will give an overview of how to use the simplified Bernoulli equation to convert the echo Doppler measured velocities (cm s-1) to AS peak and mean gra-dient (mm Hg) and how to calculate the aortic valve area (AVA), using the continuity equation, based on the principle of preservation of flow. TTE allows quantification of compensatory left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy, assessment of LV systolic function, and determination of LV diastolic function and LV loading. Subsequently, the obtained results from the TTE study need to be integrated to establish the AS severity grading. The pitfalls of echocardiographic AS severity assessment are explained, and how to deal with inconsistency between AVA and mean gradient. The contribution of transoesophageal echocardiography, low-dose dobutamine stress echo (in case of low-flow low-gradient AS), echocardiography strain imaging, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, cardiac multidetector computed tomography and the relatively new concept of Flow Pressure Gradient Classification to the work-up for aortic stenosis is discussed. Finally, the treatment of AS is overviewed. Elective aortic valve replacement is indicated in patients with severe symptomatic AS. In the ICU, afterload reduction by vasodilator therapy and treatment of pulmonary and venous congestion by diuretics could be considered.

Visualization of Human Aortic Valve Dynamics Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging with Sub-Millisecond Temporal Resolution.

BACKGROUND: Visualization of aortic valve dynamics is important in diagnosing valvular diseases but is challenging to perform with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) due to the limited temporal resolution. PURPOSE: To develop an MRI technique with sub-millisecond temporal resolution and demonstrate its application in visualizing rapid aortic valve opening and closing in human subjects in comparison with echocardiography and conventional MRI techniques. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. POPULATION: Twelve healthy subjects. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3 T; gradient-echo-train-based sub-millisecond periodic event encoded imaging (get-SPEEDI) and balanced steady-state free precession (bSSFP). ASSESSMENT: Images were acquired using get-SPEEDI with a temporal resolution of 0.6 msec. get-SPEEDI was triggered by an electrocardiogram so that each echo in the gradient echo train corresponded to an image at a specific time point, providing a time-resolved characterization of aortic valve dynamics. For comparison, bSSFP was also employed with 12 msec and 24 msec temporal resolutions, respectively. The durations of the aortic valve rapid opening (Tro ), rapid closing (Trc ), and the maximal aortic valve area (AVA) normalized to height were measured with all three temporal resolutions. M-mode echocardiograms with a temporal resolution of 0.8 msec were obtained for further comparison. STATISTICAL TEST: Parameters were compared between the three sequences, together with the echocardiography results, with a Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: Significantly shorter Tro (mean ± SD: 27.5 ± 6.7 msec) and Trc (43.8 ± 11.6 msec) and larger maximal AVA/height (2.01 ± 0.29 cm2 /m) were measured with get-SPEEDI compared to either bSSFP sequence (Tro of 56.3 ± 18.8 and 63.8 ± 20.2 msec; Trc of 68.2 ± 16.6 and 72.8 ± 18.2 msec; maximal AVA/height of 1.63 ± 0.28 and 1.65 ± 0.32 cm2 /m for 12 msec and 24 msec temporal resolutions, respectively, P < 0.05). In addition, the get-SPEEDI results were more consistent with those measured using echocardiography, especially for Tro (29.0 ± 4.1 msec, P = 0.79) and Trc (41.6 ± 4.3 msec, P = 0.16). DATA CONCLUSION: get-SPEEDI allows for visualization of human aortic valve dynamics and provided values closer to those measured using echocardiography than the bSSFP sequences. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 1.

The current diagnosis and treatment of patients with aortic valve stenosis.

Aortic valve stenosis (AS) is the third most frequent cardiovascular abnormality after coronary artery disease and hypertension. A bicuspid aortic valve is the most common cause for AS until seventh decade and calcific valve degeneration is responsible thereafter. In symptomatic patients, The risk of death increases from ≤1%/year to 2%/month. An echo valve area ≤1 cm2, peak transaortic velocity ≥4 m/s, mean valve gradient ≥40 mmHg and/or computerized tomography valve calcium score >2000 Agatston units (AU) for males or more than 1200 AU for females indicate severe AS. AS stages and management are discussed. Valve replacement is based on surgical risk, valve durability/hemodynamics, need for anticoagulation and patient preferences. EuroSCORE ≥20%, Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality ≥8% and co-morbidities indicate high surgical risk. Surgery is recommended for low-intermediate risk patients. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is an alternative in older patients at low, intermediate, high or prohibitive risk. Transaortic valve implantation/replacement trials are summarized.

Invasive versus echocardiographic gradients in degenerated surgical aortic valve prostheses: A multicenter study.

Objectives: To compare echocardiographic and invasive mean gradients obtained concomitantly in degenerated bioprosthetic surgical aortic valves (SAVRs). Methods: In a multicenter study, we compared concomitant echocardiographic and invasive mean gradients of SAVR, obtained before valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement in all patients, patients with primary stenosis (AS), primary aortic regurgitation (AR), and mixed aortic valve disease (MAVD), and in small versus large valves (≤ or >23 mm). Dimensionless index (DI) was calculated in all groups. Results: In total, 74 patients were included and data presented as median (interquartile range). Echocardiography-catheterization mean gradient discordance was observed in all patients (invasive = 22 mm Hg [11-34] vs echocardiographic = 32 mm Hg [21-42], P = .013), small valves (invasive = 15 mm Hg [8-34] vs echocardiographic = 28 mm Hg [21-41], P = .013), and large valves (invasive = 20 mm Hg [8.5-27.13] vs echocardiographic = 32 mm Hg [25.5 - 41.5], P < .0001), with a bias of 8 ± 15 mm Hg and wide limits of agreement (-22 to 39 mm Hg) on Bland-Altman plots, indicating these modalities may not be interchangeable. Discordance occurred in AR (invasive = 3 mm Hg [1-6] vs echocardiographic = 12 mm Hg [7-22], P = .017) and in MAVD (invasive = 19 mm Hg [12-29] vs echocardiographic = 31 mm Hg [23-39], P < .0001) but not in AS (invasive = 35 mm Hg [24-45] vs echocardiographic = 41 mm Hg [30-50], P = .45). A lower DI (0.21 [0.14-0.25]) occurred in AS compared with MAVD (0.31 [0.19-0.39]) and AR (0.55 [0.51-0.69]), P < .0001. Conclusions: Discordance between echocardiography and invasive mean gradients exists in degenerated SAVR, regardless of valve size, but depends on mechanism of failure and DI helps stratify these patients. With a discrepancy between echocardiographic mean gradients AND the patient's symptoms OR the valve leaflet structure and/or mobility on imaging, especially before redo-SAVR or valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement, invasive gradients may adjudicate the true valvular hemodynamics.

Short-term outcomes of aortic valve neocuspidization for various aortic valve diseases.

Objectives: Bioprosthetic valve deterioration remains a major limitation following aortic valve replacement. Favorable results have been reported with an autologous pericardium aortic valve neocuspidization. Methods: Seventy patients (31 women and 39 men) (mean age, 62 ± 12 years) with aortic stenosis (n = 52 [74%]) or aortic regurgitation (n = 18 [26%]) underwent the aortic valve neocuspidization procedure. Thirty-four patients (49%) had a tricuspid valve, 35 (50%) had a bicuspid valve, and 1 (1%) had a monocuspid valve. European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation and Society of Thoracic Surgeons scores were, respectively, 2.2% ± 2% and 2.0% ± 1.8%. Four patients (6%) had active endocarditis and 2 (3%) had endocarditis sequelae. One patient (1%) had fibroelastoma. A combined procedure was performed in 33 patients (46%). Results: The follow-up period was 24 ± 12 months. One patient (1%) died in hospital and 1 patient (1%) underwent conventional valve replacement for significant aortic regurgitation. Postoperative peak and mean pressure gradients were respectively 14 ± 5 and 8 ± 3 mm Hg. Aortic valve area was 2.5 ± 0.6 cm2. During follow-up, no patients died. Reintervention occurred in 2 patients (3%). At last follow-up, peak pressure gradient was 13 ± 7 mm Hg, mean pressure gradient was 7 ± 4 mm Hg, and aortic valve area was 2.3 ± 0.7 cm2. There was 1 recurrence of moderate aortic stenosis (1%). All patients were in New York Heart Association functional class I (90%) or II (10%). Freedom from major valve-related events was 92.1%, (98.5% for death, 95.2% for reintervention, and 95.2% for endocarditis). Conclusions: In our experience, the midterm outcomes of the aortic valve neocuspidization procedure with autologous glutaraldehyde fixed pericardium were acceptable for survival, operative risk and valve-related complications, for our all-comer patient population with various aortic valve diseases.

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance as a complementary method to transthoracic echocardiography for aortic valve area estimation in patients with aortic stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most common valvular heart disease. While two-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography (2D-TTE) is the standard imaging modality for AS assessment, cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) offers a reliable and reproducible alternative. The aim of this study was to compare AVA measurements as determined by TTE and CMR in patients with AS. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched to identify studies comparing TTE continuity equation to CMR planimetry for AVA assessment. A meta-analysis of mean difference was conducted by using the random effects model. Sensitivity analysis was performed after excluding studies reporting AVA indexed to body surface area (BSA). Heterogeneity was assessed with I2. RESULTS: A total of 12 studies, encompassing 621 patients, were included in our systematic review. In the pooled analysis, measurements of AVA by CMR planimetry were found to be significantly higher than those calculated by the continuity equation in TTE (pooled mean difference: 0.09, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.01, 0.17, and I2: 93%). The results remained significant, albeit with moderate heterogeneity this time, after excluding the analysis measurements of AVA indexed to BSA (pooled mean difference: 0.08, 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.13, and I2 = 61%). CONCLUSIONS: CMR planimetry slightly overestimates AVA compared to TTE continuity equation. Although, 2D-TTE should be the primary imaging modality for the estimation of AVA, CMR may be useful when there is discrepancy with the clinical assessment or when TTE results are discordant or difficult to obtain.

A pairwise meta-analytic comparison of aortic valve area determined by planimetric versus hemodynamic methods in aortic stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Aortic valve area (AVA) is commonly determined from 2-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography (2D TTE) by the continuity equation; however, this method relies on geometric assumptions of the left ventricular outflow tract which may not hold true. This study compared mean differences and correlations for AVA by planimetric (2-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography [2D TEE], 3-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography [3D TEE], 3-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography [3D TTE], multi-detector computed tomography [MDCT], and magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) with hemodynamic methods (2D TTE and catheterization) using pairwise meta-analysis. METHOD: Ovid MEDLINE®, Ovid EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library (Wiley) were queried for studies comparing AVA measurements assessed by planimetric and hemodynamic techniques. Pairwise meta-analysis for mean differences (using random effect model) and for correlation coefficients (r) were performed. RESULTS: Forty-five studies (3014 patients) were included. Mean differences between planimetric and hemodynamic techniques were 0.12 cm2 (95%CI 0.10-0.15) for AVA (pooled r = 0.84; 95%CI 0.76-0.90); 1.36cm2 (95%CI 1.03-1.69) for left ventricular outflow tract area; and 0.13 cm (95%CI 0.07-0.20) for annular diameter (pooled r = 0.76; 95% CI 0.64-0.94); 0.67 cm2 (95%CI 0.59-0.76) for annular area (pooled r = 0.74; 95%CI 0.55-0.86). CONCLUSIONS: Planimetric techniques slightly, but significantly, overestimate AVA when compared to hemodynamic techniques.

Implications of Coexisting Aortic Regurgitation in Patients With Aortic Stenosis.

Background: Aortic regurgitation (AR) is a common comorbidity in patients with aortic stenosis (AS), but coexisting AR has often been excluded from major clinical studies on AS. The impact of coexisting AR on the natural history of AS has not been well-described. Objectives: The authors compared clinical outcomes in medically managed patients with moderate-to-severe AS with or without coexisting AR. Methods: Consecutive patients (N = 1,188) with index echocardiographic diagnosis of moderate-to-severe AS (aortic valve area <1.5 cm2) were studied. All patients were medically managed and were divided into those with coexisting AR (at least moderate severity) and those without. Adverse composite clinical outcomes were defined as mortality or admissions for congestive cardiac failure on subsequent follow-up. The authors compared differences in clinical profile and outcomes between the groups. Results: There were 88 patients (7.4%) with coexisting AR and AS. These patients did not differ significantly in age, but had lower body mass index (22.9 ± 3.8 vs 25.3 ± 5.1 kg/m2), lower diastolic blood pressure (68.7 ± 10.7 vs 72.2 ± 12.3 mm Hg), larger end-diastolic volume index (68.8 ± 18.8 vs 60.4 ± 17.8 mL/m2) and larger left ventricular mass index (118.6 ± 36.4 vs 108.9 ± 33.1 g/m2). The prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors did not differ significantly. Coexisting AR was associated with increased incidence of adverse outcomes (log-rank 4.20; P = 0.040). On multivariable Cox regression, coexisting AR remained independently associated with adverse outcomes (HR: 1.36; 95% CI: 1.02-1.82) after adjusting for age, AS severity, left ventricular ejection fraction, and year of study. Conclusions: In patients with AS, coexisting AR was associated with changes in echocardiographic profile and adverse outcomes.