scholarly journals TCT-47 Valvosoft Noninvasive Ultrasound Therapy (NIUT) in Low-Flow, Low-Gradient Severe Aortic Stenosis

2021 ◽  
Vol 78 (19) ◽  
pp. B19
Author(s):  
A.J.J. IJsselmuiden ◽  
Jonathan Halim ◽  
Guillaume Goudot ◽  
Bas Schőlzel ◽  
Jeroen Vos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Severe Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Low Flow ◽  
Ultrasound Therapy

scholarly journals Use and success evaluation of percutaneous aortic balloon valvuloplasty in different hemodynamic entities of severe aortic stenosis in the TAVR era

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
K Piayda ◽  
A Wimmer ◽  
H Sievert ◽  
K Hellhammer ◽  
S Afzal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Pressure Gradient ◽  
Severe Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Primary Treatment ◽  
Low Flow ◽  
Mean Pressure ◽  
The Mean

Abstract Background In the era of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), there is renewed interest in percutaneous balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV), which may qualify as the primary treatment option of choice in special clinical situations. Success of BAV is commonly defined as a significant mean pressure gradient reduction after the procedure. Purpose To evaluate the correlation of the mean pressure gradient reduction and increase in the aortic valve area (AVA) in different flow and gradient patterns of severe aortic stenosis (AS). Methods Consecutive patients from 01/2010 to 03/2018 undergoing BAV were divided into normal-flow high-gradient (NFHG), low-flow low-gradient (LFLG) and paradoxical low-flow low-gradient (pLFLG) AS. Baseline characteristics, hemodynamic and clinical information were collected and compared. Additionally, the clinical pathway of patients (BAV as a stand-alone procedure or BAV as a bridge to aortic valve replacement) was followed-up. Results One-hundred-fifty-six patients were grouped into NFHG (n=68, 43.5%), LFLG (n=68, 43.5%) and pLFLG (n=20, 12.8%) AS. Underlying reasons for BAV and not TAVR/SAVR as the primary treatment option are displayed in Figure 1. Spearman correlation revealed that the mean pressure gradient reduction had a moderate correlation with the increase in the AVA in patients with NFHG AS (r: 0.529, p<0.001) but showed no association in patients with LFLG (r: 0.145, p=0.239) and pLFLG (r: 0.030, p=0.889) AS. Underlying reasons for patients to undergo BAV and not TAVR/SAVR varied between groups, however cardiogenic shock or refractory heart failure (overall 46.8%) were the most common ones. After the procedure, independent of the hemodynamic AS entity, patients showed a functional improvement, represented by substantially lower NYHA class levels (p<0.001), lower NT-pro BNP levels (p=0.003) and a numerical but non-significant improvement in other echocardiographic parameters like the left ventricular ejection fraction (p=0.163) and tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE, p=0.066). An unplanned cardiac re-admission due to heart failure was necessary in 23.7% patients. Less than half of the patients (44.2%) received BAV as a bridge to TAVR/SAVR (median time to bridge 64 days). Survival was significantly increased in patients having BAV as a staged procedure (log-rank p<0.001). Conclusion In daily clinical practice, the mean pressure gradient reduction might be an adequate surrogate of BAV success in patients with NFHG AS but is not suitable for patients with other hemodynamic entities of AS. In those patients, TTE should be directly performed in the catheter laboratory to correctly assess the increase of the AVA. BAV as a staged procedure in selected clinical scenarios increases survival and is a considerable option in all flow states of severe AS. (NCT04053192) Figure 1 Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

scholarly journals Impact of the Trifecta bioprosthetic valve in patients with low-flow severe aortic stenosis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tohru Takaseya ◽  
Atsunobu Oryoji ◽  
Kazuyoshi Takagi ◽  
Tomofumi Fukuda ◽  
Koichi Arinaga ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Severe Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Stroke Volume Index ◽  
Low Flow ◽  
Volume Index ◽  
Effective Orifice Area ◽  
Aortic Valve Area ◽  
Hemodynamic Performance ◽  
Mid Term Results

AbstractAortic stenosis (AS) is the most common valve disorder in advanced age. Previous reports have shown that low-flow status of the left ventricle is an independent predictor of cardiovascular mortality after surgery. The Trifecta bioprosthesis has recently shown favorable hemodynamic performance. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of the Trifecta bioprosthesis, which has a large effective orifice area, in patients with low-flow severe AS who have a poor prognosis. We retrospectively evaluated 94 consecutive patients with severe AS who underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR). Patients were divided into two groups according to the stroke volume index (SVI): low-flow (LF) group (SVI < 35 ml/m2, n = 22) and normal-flow (NF) group (SVI ≥ 35 ml/m2, n = 72). Patients’ characteristics and early and mid-term results were compared between the two groups. There were no differences in patients’ characteristics, except for systolic blood pressure (LF:NF = 120:138 mmHg, p < 0.01) and the rate of atrial fibrillation between the groups. A preoperative echocardiogram showed that the pressure gradient was higher in the NF group than in the LF group, but aortic valve area was similar. The Trifecta bioprosthesis size was similar in both groups. The operative outcomes were not different between the groups. Severe patient–prosthesis mismatch (PPM) (< 0.65 cm2/m2) was not observed in either of the groups. There were no significant differences in mid-term results between the two groups. The favorable hemodynamic performance of the Trifecta bioprosthesis appears to have the similar outcomes in the LF and NF groups. AVR with the Trifecta bioprosthesis should be considered for avoidance of PPM, particularly in AS patients with LV dysfunction.

scholarly journals 177 Prevalence and characteristics of paradoxical low flow, low gradient severe aortic stenosis: results from a cardiac catheterization study

2012 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 56
Author(s):  
Dania Mohty ◽  
Mathieu Deltreuil ◽  
Philippe Pibarot ◽  
Benedicte Tanguy ◽  
Claude Cassat ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Cardiac Catheterization ◽  
Severe Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Low Flow

An Unusual Cause of Low-Flow, Low-Gradient Severe Aortic Stenosis: Left-to-Right Shunt due to Atrial Septal Defect

Cardiology ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 113 (2) ◽  
pp. 146-148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierre Vladimir Ennezat ◽  
Francis Juthier ◽  
André Vincentelli ◽  
Philippe Pibarot ◽  
Sylvestre Maréchaux
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Atrial Septal Defect ◽  
Septal Defect ◽  
Severe Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Low Flow

Abstract 12660: Impact of Aortic Valve Replacement versus Medical Management on Survival of Low Flow Low Gradient Severe Aortic Stenosis With Normal Ejection Fraction

Circulation ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 132 (suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zaher Fanari ◽  
Dimitrios Barmpouletos ◽  
Vivek K Reddy ◽  
Sumaya Hammami ◽  
Zugui Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Severe Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Low Flow ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Normal Ejection Fraction ◽  
Normal Flow ◽  
Log Rank Test

Background: The impact of aortic valve replacement (AVR) versus medical management (MM) in patients with paradoxical low flow is unclear. The objective of this study was to compare outcomes of AVR versus MM in patients with severe aortic stenosis and normal ejection fraction and different transaortic flow and gradient. Methods: We identified consecutive patients presenting to our echo lab with an aortic valve area (AVA) < 1.0cm 2 and EF≥ 50%. We stratify patients depending on gradient (≥ 40 vs. < 40 mmHg) and stroke volume index (SVI < 35 vs. ≥35 ml/m 2 ). 4 groups were identified (, normal flow, high gradient [NF/HG]; normal flow, low gradient [NF/LG]; low flow, high gradient [LF/HG] and low flow, low gradient [LF/LG]. These 4 groups were also stratified depending on management (AVR vs. MM). All patients were retrospectively followed for the occurrence of death. Results: A total of 954 patients were included in analysis. Mean follow up was 2.45 ± 1.9 years. The mean age was 75.4 ± 5.6 years. Comparing all 4 AS subgroups, the mortality was higher in LF/HG followed by LF/LG, NF/HG and NF/LG (LF/HG 37.1% vs. LF/LG 33.9% vs. NF/HG 30.3%vs. NF/LG 20.2%; Log Rank Test, P=0.003). Patients who underwent medical therapy have a higher mortality than the overall cohort in all subgroups (LF/HG 44.3% vs. NF/HG 36.6% vs. LF/LG 33.7% vs. NF/LG 21.2%; Log Rank Test, P=0.001). Patients with HG had a higher chance of getting aortic valve replacement (AVR) than those with LF/LG and NF/LG (20.7% NF/HG vs. 10.6% LF/HG vs. 4.7% LF/LG and 3.6% NF/LG; P=0.01). Patients who underwent AVR had lower mortality rates when compared with the overall cohort in all subgroups (LF/HG 21.4% vs. 18.9% NF/HG vs. 6.6% LF/LG and 7.1% NF/LG; Log Rank Test, P= 0.253). Conclusion: Patients with LF/LG represent an under-recognized high-risk group with similar prognosis to NF/HG. Although these patients may benefit tremendously from AVR, they are less likely to undergo AVR when compared to HG patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document