scholarly journals TCT-678 Comparison of Invasive and Non-invasive Data of the Ratio between the Effective and Geometric Aortic Valve Area in Normal and Low Flow Patients: Overestimation of aortic stenosis severity by Doppler with Low Flow: A TAVR Study

2014 ◽  
Vol 64 (11) ◽  
pp. B197
Author(s):  
Amr Abbas ◽  
Marc Sakwa ◽  
Francis Shannon ◽  
Kerolos Shenouda ◽  
Abhay N. Bilolikar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Low Flow ◽  
Aortic Valve Area ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Stenosis Severity ◽  
Valve Area

scholarly journals Use of passive leg rise as an add-on to dobutamine in patients with paradoxical low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
E Buffle ◽  
A Papadis ◽  
C Seiler ◽  
S F De Marchi
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Stroke Volume Index ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Low Flow ◽  
Volume Index ◽  
Aortic Valve Area ◽  
Low Ejection Fraction ◽  
Valve Area

Abstract Background Dobutamine has been proposed for the assessment of low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis (LFLGAS). However, in 1/3 of patients, no increase in stroke volume index can be achieved by Dobutamine, thus hampering its diagnostic value. This study evaluated the manoeuvre of cardiac preload augmentation by passive leg rise (PLR) alone or on top of Dobutamine to increase stroke volume index (SVI) in patients with LFLGAS, particularly in paradoxical LFLGAS. Methods We examined 50 patients with LFLGAS. Patients were assigned to the paradoxical LFLGAS (Paradox) group if left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was ≥50% (n=29) and to the LFLGAS with low ejection fraction (LEF) group if LVEF was <50% (n=21). A modified Dobutamine stress echocardiography was performed in all patients with the following 4 steps: Rest, PLR alone, maximal Dobutamine infusion rate alone (Dmax) and Dobutamine plus PLR (Dmax + PLR). Three SVI measurement methods were used: first the left ventricular outflow tract velocity time integral (LVOT VTI) method, second the 2D Simpson's method, and third the 3D method. The corresponding aortic valve area (AVA) was obtained by the continuity equation. The increase of those values compared to measurements at rest was calculated and compared between the 3 stress steps. Results In the paradoxical LFLGAS group, delta SVI with Dmax assessed by both Simpson's (depicted in the figures) and 3D method was lowest compared to PLR and Dmax + PLR. PLR alone yielded an equally high delta SVI as Dmax + PLR in Simpson's and 3D, and was at least as high as Dmax across all methods. Dobutamine alone yielded the lowest delta transaortic aortic valve VTI. The highest delta aortic valve area resulted for Dmax + PLR. In the LEF group, the three stress steps yielded an equally high delta SVI with Simpson's method. Dmax never yielded a higher delta SVI than PLR alone. The yielded delta SVI was the highest for Dmax + PLR for both LVOT VTI and 3d method, although the difference was overall not as strong as in the Paradox group. Conclusions In patients with paradoxical LFLGAS, Dobutamine alone is inadequate for testing the potential of aortic valve opening augmentation. Instead, PLR alone or the addition of PLR plus Dobutamine should be used for that purpose. In low LVEF, adding PLR to Dobutamine also seems useful although its diagnostic added value is less evident than in the Paradox group. FUNDunding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Foundation. Main funding source(s): Gottfried und Julia Bangerter-Rhyner-Foundation Paradox group Low ejection fraction group

scholarly journals Pace of progression of aortic stenosis severity in patients with tricuspid and bicuspid valve

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
P.H Hamala ◽  
J.D.K Kasprzak ◽  
K.W.D Wierzbowska-Drabik
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Continuity Equation ◽  
Peak Pressure ◽  
Progression Rate ◽  
Funding Source ◽  
Aortic Valve Area ◽  
Time Points ◽  
Stenosis Severity ◽  
Valve Area

Abstract Background Knowledge about determinants and pace of aortic stenosis (AS) progression may improve classification to aortic valve replacement. We quantified and compared pace of AS progression in patients with tricuspid and bicuspid aortic valve (TAV and BAV) examined by transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) in years 2004–2019. Methods We analysed retrospectively 322 TTE performed in two time points (median time between examinations 31±31 months) in 161 AS patients (mean age 69±11 years, 101 male, 40 BAV), evaluating the changes of parameters reflecting AS severity: peak pressure gradient (PG), aortic valve area by planimetry (AVApl) and continuity equation (AVAce). Then we compared pace of AS progression (defined as change of parameters per year) between patients with BAV and TAV and searched for correlates of AS progression. Results Although patients with BAV were younger, cardiovascular risk factors profile and baseline AS advancement were similar in both groups, see Table. Severe AS was present in 20% in BAV and 21% in TAV, p=ns. Patients with BAV showed circa 3 times more rapid AS progression expressed as the increase of PG per year (18.5±41.3 mmHg vs 4.1±34.4 mmHg in TAV, p=0.03) and yearly AVAce decrease (−0.23±0.27 vs −0.03±0.32, p=0.028). Smaller AVA value at baseline predicted faster pace of AS progression (with correlation coefficient r=−0.34, p=0.002 for AVApl). Conclusion Progression rate of AS depends on valve morphology being more rapid in BAV with similar to TAV baseline AS severity. In the whole group pace of progression correlated negatively with baseline AVA. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

Clinical features and prognosis of patients with isolated severe aortic stenosis and valve area less than 1.0 cm2

Heart ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 104 (3) ◽  
pp. 222-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
Praveen Mehrotra ◽  
Katrijn Jansen ◽  
Timothy C Tan ◽  
Aidan Flynn ◽  
Judy W Hung
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Clinical Features ◽  
Severe Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Low Flow ◽  
Aortic Valve Area ◽  
High Gradients ◽  
Current Guidelines ◽  
Valve Area

ObjectiveCurrent guidelines define severe aortic stenosis (AS) as an aortic valve area (AVA)≤1.0 cm2, but some authors have suggested that the AVA cut-off be decreased to 0.8 cm2. The aim of this study was, therefore, to better describe the clinical features and prognosis of patients with an AVA of 0.8–0.99 cm2.MethodsPatients with isolated, severe AS and ejection fraction ≥55% with an AVA of 0.8–0.99 cm2 (n=105) were compared with those with an AVA<0.8 cm2 (n=155) and 1.0–1.3 cm2 (n=81). The endpoint of this study was a combination of death from any cause or aortic valve replacement at or before 3 years.ResultsPatients with an AVA of 0.8–0.99 cm2 group comprised predominantly normal-flow, low-gradient (NFLG) AS, while high gradients and low flow were more often observed with an AVA<0.8 cm2. The frequency of symptoms was not significantly different between an AVA of 0.8–0.99 cm2 and 1.0–1.3 cm2. The combined endpoint was achieved in 71%, 52% and 21% of patients with an AVA of 0.8 cm2, 0.8–0.99 cm2and 1.0–1.3 cm2, respectively (p<0.001). Among patients with an AVA of 0.8–0.99 cm2, NFLG AS was associated with a lower hazard (HR=0.40, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.68, p=0.001) of achieving the combined endpoint with outcomes similar to moderate AS in the first 1.5 years of follow-up. Patients with high-gradient or low-flow AS with an AVA of 0.8–0.99 cm2 had outcomes similar to those with an AVA<0.8 cm2. The sensitivity for the combined endpoint was 61% for an AVA cut-off of 0.8 cm2 and 91% for a cut-off of 1.0 cm2.ConclusionsThe outcomes of patients with AS with an AVA of 0.8–0.99 cm2 are variable and are more precisely defined by flow-gradient status. Our findings support the current AVA cut-off of 1.0 cm2.

scholarly journals COMPARISION OF INDEXED PROJECTED AORTIC VALVE AREA AND AORTIC VALVE CALCIFICATION DENSITY IN PATIENTS WITH LOW FLOW, LOW GRADIENT AORTIC STENOSIS

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (10) ◽  
pp. S24
Author(s):  
J. Grenier-Delaney ◽  
M. Annabi ◽  
I. Burwash ◽  
J. Bergler-Klein ◽  
J. Mascherbauer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Low Flow ◽  
Aortic Valve Area ◽  
Aortic Valve Calcification ◽  
Valve Calcification ◽  
Valve Area

P3369Impact of global left ventricular afterload, aortic stenosis severity and left ventricular hypertrophy on global myocardial work

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
F Ilardi ◽  
S Marchetta ◽  
R E Dulgheru ◽  
S Cimino ◽  
G D'Amico ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Stroke Volume ◽  
Speckle Tracking ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Low Flow ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Aortic Valve Area ◽  
Global Work ◽  
Valve Area

Abstract Background Myocardial work (MW) is an innovative tool, that derives from myocardial strain with the advantage to incorporate measurement of deformation and load. Therefore, it could be useful in conditions of increased afterload, such as aortic stenosis (AS). To date, little is known about the changes in MW related to AS severity, left ventricle (LV) geometry and arterial compliance. Purpose We investigated the effect of valvulo-arterial impedance (Zva), stroke volume and LV hypertrophy in patients with AS and preserved LV ejection fraction (EF). Methods We retrospectively analyzed 283 patients (60% males, mean age 71±12 years old) with AS (aortic valve area ≤1.5 cm2) and LVEF≥50%. Exclusion criteria were more than mild associated cardiac valve lesion, left bundle branch block, and suboptimal quality of speckle-tracking image analysis. The control group included 50 patients matched for age and sex. Clinical, demographic and resting echocardiographic data were recorded, including quantification of 2D global longitudinal strain (GLS), global work index (GWI), global constructive work (GCW), global wasted work (GWW) and global work efficiency (GWE). Results Patients with AS had higher systolic (p=0.017) and diastolic arterial pressure (p=0.007), increased LV wall thickness, mass index (p<0.001) and volumes (p=0.045) compared to controls. Greater indexed left atrial volume, E/e' and trans-tricuspid gradient were also observed in the AS group (p<0.001). As expected, speckle tracking analysis revealed significant lower GLS in AS than in control group (18.7±3.2 vs 20.7±2.1%, p<0.001). Conversely, increased values of GCW and GWI (respectively 2965±647 vs 2360±353 mmHg%, and 2535±559 vs 2005±302 mmHg%, p<0.001) were observed in patients with AS. Besides, GWW was significantly increased in AS vs controls (147±108 vs 90±49 mmHg%, p=0.001), with no changes in terms of GWE (95±4 vs 96±2%, p=0.110). When patients were stratified according to the AS severity, the analysis of variance revealed that GCW, GWI and GWW significantly increased with higher transaortic mean gradient and lower aortic valve area (p<0.001). Also Zva demonstrated to impact on CGW (p=0.040) and GWW (p<0.001), with increased values in presence of increased global LV afterload (Zva>4.5 mmHg/ml/m2). Conversely, patients with low-flow AS (stroke volume index <35 ml/m2) showed lowers values of GCW (p=0.014) and GWI (p=0.001) compared to normal flow AS, but increased GWW (p=0.041) and reduced GWE (93±7 vs 95±4%, p=0.010). Finally, LV geometry didn't influence significantly GCW and GWE, only an increase of GWW was observed in patients with eccentric hypertrophy (p=0.031). Conclusion In patients with AS and preserved LVEF, GLS reduction is accompanied by an increase of GCW, GWI and GWW, without affecting the GWE. These modifications seem to be correlated to the severity of AS, low-flow state and increased global LV afterload but not on the grade of LV hypertrophy.

scholarly journals 107 Low-flow low-gradient aortic stenosis: aortic valve area estimated by continuity equation versus simplified method of projected aortic valve area

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
J A Da Conceicao Pedro Pais ◽  
P Fazendas ◽  
A Marques ◽  
K Congo ◽  
A C Gomes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Flow Rate ◽  
Continuity Equation ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Low Flow ◽  
Aortic Valve Area ◽  
Simplified Method ◽  
Valve Area

Abstract Introduction The evaluation of real severity of "low-flow low-gradient" aortic stenosis (LFLG AS) is particularly challenging. TOPAS study demonstrated that projected aortic valve area at a normal transvalvular flow rate (AVAproj) derived from dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) is superior to the traditional Doppler indices to discriminate true severe-AS and pseudosevere-AS. Purpose To compare two echocardiographic methods to estimate severity of LFLG AS with DSE (aortic valve area (AVA) estimated by continuity equation (AVA-CE) and simplified method of AVAproj) in patients (pts) with low transvalvular flow rate (&lt;250mL/seg). Methods Unicentric, retrospective study, that included pts with LFLG AS undergoing DSE with low dose dobutamine protocol, during Nov 2013-Dec 2018 period. Evaluation at rest and peak DSE of vital signs, mean transaortic gradient, aortic VTI, LVOT VTI and VTI ratio, valvulo-arterial impedance (ZVA), AVA-CE, simplified method of AVAproj and global longitudinal strain (GLS). Results A total of 27 DSE were performed in 23 different pts, mean age of 76 ± 8 years, 82% male. At rest 55% in sinus rhythm, mean heart rate (HR) was 76 ± 12 bpm, mean systolic arterial pressure (SAP) was 122 ± 22 mmHg, mean ZVA 4.3 ± 2 mmHg/ml/m2; mean diameter of LVOT was 21,7 ± 2,6cm, mean of mean aortic gradients 21 ± 7 mmHg, 67% of pts had a VTI ratio at rest compatible with severe AS and remaining compatible with moderate AS. Estimated mean AVA-CE was 0.86 ± 0.29 cm2 with 67% of pts classified as severe AS. Mean left ventricular ejection fraction at rest was 31 ± 9%, systolic volume index 28,7 ± 8 mL/m2 and GLS -5,9%. During low dose perfusion protocol of dobutamine 100% patients remained asymptomatic, mean HR was 110 ± 25 bpm, mean SAP was 123 ± 26 mmHg, mean ZVA 3.6 ± 1.7 mmHg/mL/m2, mean of mean aortic gradients 28 ± 9mmHg, 37% of pts presented VTI ratio compatible with severe AS and remaining compatible with moderate AS. Mean flow reserve was 16 ± 16% and mean GLS-7.2%. AVA-CE was 1,06 ± 0,35 cm2 with 56% of pts classified as severe AS and mean projected AVA was 1.01 ± 0.22cm2, without significant difference in AVA estimated by the two methods (p = 0.344). Projected AVA allowed re-classification of AS in 22% of pts (5 patients), with 31% of severe AS reclassified as moderate AS while AVA-CE allowed re-classification in 13% (3 patients), with 19% of severe AS reclassified as moderate AS. Considering medium follow up of 24 months, 6 patients were submitted aortic valve replacement surgery and another 6 patients to transcatheter aortic valve replacement. The simplified projected valve area calculation show no significant therapeutic impact in the selection of this patients. Conclusion The simplified projected valve area calculation is technically feasible and accessible. This study shows a good correlation in pts with low cardiac flow. If AVAproj method had been used 2 extra patients would have been reclassified during DSE.

scholarly journals Imaging Challenges in Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis and Heart Failure: Did We Find a Way Out of the Labyrinth?

2022 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 317
Author(s):  
Birgid Gonska ◽  
Dominik Buckert ◽  
Johannes Mörike ◽  
Dominik Scharnbeck ◽  
Johannes Kersten ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Cardiac Output ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Low Flow ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Aortic Valve Area ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Valve Area

Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most frequent degenerative valvular disease in developed countries. Its incidence has been constantly rising due to population aging. The diagnosis of AS was considered straightforward for a very long time. High gradients and reduced aortic valve area were considered as “sine qua non” in diagnosis of AS until a growing body of evidence showed that patients with low gradients could also have severe AS with the same or even worse outcome. This completely changed the paradigm of AS diagnosis and involved large numbers of parameters that had never been used in the evaluation of AS severity. Low gradient AS patients may present with heart failure (HF) with preserved or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), associated with changes in cardiac output and flow across the aortic valve. These patients with low-flow low-gradient or paradoxical low-flow low-gradient AS are particularly challenging to diagnose, and cardiac output and flow across the aortic valve have become the most relevant parameters in evaluation of AS, besides gradients and aortic valve area. The introduction of other imaging modalities in the diagnosis of AS significantly improved our knowledge about cardiac mechanics, tissue characterization of myocardium, calcium and inflammation burden of the aortic valve, and their impact on severity, progression and prognosis of AS, not only in symptomatic but also in asymptomatic patients. However, a variety of novel parameters also brought uncertainty regarding the clinical relevance of these indices, as well as the necessity for their validation in everyday practice. The aim of this review is to summarize the prevalence of HF in patients with severe AS and elaborate on the diagnostic challenges and advantages of comprehensive multimodality cardiac imaging to identify the patients that may benefit from surgical or transcatheter aortic valve replacement, as well as parameters that may help during follow-up.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document