scholarly journals prognostic evaluation of patients benefiting from a trans aortic valve replacement according to the type of aortic stenosis

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Lacout ◽  
C David ◽  
A Bernard ◽  
C Saint Etienne ◽  
JM Clerc ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Low Flow ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Normal Flow ◽  
High Gradient ◽  
Normal Lvef

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Introduction Aortic Stenosis (AS) is a common condition in patients over 75 years.  Latest ESC recommendations differentiate 4 types of AS according to: Indexed Stroke Volume (SVi), mean gradient and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The aim of our study is to evaluate prognosis of patients who have had a transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), in terms of mortality, according  to the 4 types of AS. Methods This study compares prognosis of 620 patients who had TAVR between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2018. Patients were classified into 4 groups according to AS type: high gradient; low gradient, low flow, low LVEF; low gradient, low flow, normal LVEF; low gradient, normal flow. Results 69 patients (11.1%) died within 12 months of the procedure: 49 in the high gradient group (9.4%); 13 in the low gradient, low flow, low LVEF group (47.1%); 1 in the low gradient, low flow, normal LVEF group (5%); 6 in the low gradient, normal flow, normal LVEF group (18.2%). All-cause mortality at one year follow-up is higher in low-gradient, low-flow, altered LVEF group (p = 0.0004) than in other groups. Patients in this group were significantly more often admitted for heart failure than patients in high-gradient group (p = 0.009). Conclusion A complete echocardiography evaluation is needed to evaluate AS, its severity and type. Patients in the low gradient, low flow, low LVEF group have an independent risk of mortality at 12 months higher than other groups and are more hospitalized than patients in the high gradient group.

scholarly journals Low-Flow, Low-Gradient Severe Aortic Stenosis: Cardiac Computed Tomography Findings and Clinical Outcomes After Aortic Valve Replacement

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Se Jin Choi ◽  
Yura Ahn ◽  
Hyun Jung Koo ◽  
Dae-Hee Kim ◽  
Soyeon Lim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Old Age ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Aortic Annulus ◽  
Low Flow ◽  
High Gradient

Abstract Aortic valve calcium scoring by cardiac computed tomographic (CT) has been recommended as an alternative to classify the AS severity, but it is unclear that whether CT findings can predict and have prognostic implication in low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis (LF-LG AS), which has fewer benefit from surgery among the AS subtypes. In this study, we examined the clinical and cardiac CT findings of LF-LG AS patients and evaluated factors affecting outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). This study included 511 (66.9±8.8 years, 55% men) consecutive patients with severe AS who underwent surgical AVR. Aortic valve area (AVA) was obtained by echocardiography (AVAecho) and by CT (AVACT) using each modalities measurement of the left ventricular outflow tract. Patients with AS were classified as 1) high-gradient severe (n=438), 2) classic LF-LG (n=18), and 3) paradoxical LF-LG (n=55) based on echocardiography. Classic LF-LG AS patients had higher end-systolic and end-diastolic volume indices, lower left ventricular ejection fraction, larger AVAecho and AVACT, and larger aortic annulus compared to high-gradient severe AS (P<0.05, for all). In classic LF-LG AS group, 27.8% of patients presented AVACT≥1.2 cm2. After multivariable adjustment, old age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04, P=0.049), high B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) (HR, 1.005; P<0.001), preoperative atrial fibrillation (HR, 2.75; P=0.003), classic LF-LG AS (HR, 5.53, P=0.004), and small aortic annulus (HR, 0.57; P=0.002) were independently associated with major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). The classic LF-LG AS group presented larger AVACT and aortic annulus than those in high-gradient severe AS group and one third of them had AVACT ≥1.2 cm2. Old age, high BNP, atrial fibrillation, classic LF-LG AS, and small aortic annulus were associated with MACCE in severe AS patients after surgical AVR.

scholarly journals The impact of aortic valve replacement on survival in patients with normal flow low gradient severe aortic stenosis: a propensity-matched comparison

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (10) ◽  
pp. 1094-1101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sahrai Saeed ◽  
Anastasia Vamvakidou ◽  
Reinhard Seifert ◽  
Rajdeep Khattar ◽  
Wei Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Severe Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Volume Index ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Normal Flow ◽  
All Cause Mortality

Abstract Aims To assess the survival benefit of aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients with normal flow low gradient severe aortic stenosis (AS). Methods and results A retrospective study of prospectively collected data of 276 patients (mean age 75 ± 15 years, 51% male) with normal transaortic flow [flow rate (FR) ≥200 mL/s or stroke volume index (SVi) ≥35 mL/m2] and severe AS (aortic valve area <1.0 cm2). The outcome measure was all-cause mortality. Of the 276 patients, 151 (55%) were medically treated, while 125 (45%) underwent an AVR. Over a mean follow-up of 3.2 ± 1.8 years (range 0–6.9 years), a total of 96 (34.8%) deaths occurred: 17 (13.6%) in AVR group vs. 79 (52.3%) in those medically treated, when transaortic flow was defined by FR (P < 0.001). When transaortic flow was defined by SVi, a total of 79 (31.3%) deaths occurred: 18 (15.1%) in AVR group vs. 61 (45.9%) in medically treated (P < 0.001). In a propensity-matched multivariable Cox regression analysis adjusting for age, gender, body surface area, smoking, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, atrial fibrillation, peripheral vascular disease, chronic kidney disease, left ventricular ejection fraction, left ventricular mass, and mean aortic gradient, not having AVR was associated with a 6.3-fold higher hazard ratio (HR) of all-cause mortality [HR 6.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.34–13.16; P < 0.001] when flow was defined by FR. In the SVi-guided model, it was 3.83-fold (HR 3.83, 95% CI 2.30–6.37; P < 0.001). Conclusion In patients with normal flow low gradient severe AS, AVR was associated with a significantly improved survival compared with those who received standard medical treatment.

scholarly journals Left Ventricular Mechanics Differ in Subtypes of Aortic Stenosis Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

2022 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adil Wani ◽  
Daniel R. Harland ◽  
Tanvir K. Bajwa ◽  
Stacie Kroboth ◽  
Khawaja Afzal Ammar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Survival Benefit ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Low Flow ◽  
Normal Flow ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve

BackgroundLeft ventricular (LV) mechanics are impaired in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). We hypothesized that there would be differences in myocardial mechanics, measured by global longitudinal strain (GLS) recovery in patients with four subtypes of severe AS after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), stratified based upon flow and gradient.MethodsWe retrospectively evaluated 204 patients with severe AS who underwent TAVR and were followed post-TAVR at our institution for clinical outcomes. Speckle-tracking transthoracic echocardiography was performed pre- and post-TAVR. Patients were classified as: (1) normal-flow and high-gradient, (2) normal-flow and high-gradient with reduced LV ejection fraction (LVEF), (3) classical low-flow and low-gradient, or (4) paradoxical low-flow and low-gradient.ResultsBoth GLS (−13.9 ± 4.3 to −14.8 ± 4.3, P &lt; 0.0001) and LVEF (55 ± 15 to 57 ± 14%, P = 0.0001) improved immediately post-TAVR. Patients with low-flow AS had similar improvements in LVEF (+2.6 ± 9%) and aortic valve mean gradient (−23.95 ± 8.34 mmHg) as patients with normal-flow AS. GLS was significantly improved in patients with normal-flow (−0.93 ± 3.10, P = 0.0004) compared to low-flow AS. Across all types of AS, improvement in GLS was associated with a survival benefit, with GLS recovery in alive patients (mean GLS improvement of −1.07 ± 3.10, P &lt; 0.0001).ConclusionsLV mechanics are abnormal in all patients with subtypes of severe AS and improve immediately post-TAVR. Recovery of GLS was associated with a survival benefit. Patients with both types of low-flow AS showed significantly improved, but still impaired, GLS post-TAVR, suggesting underlying myopathy that does not correct post-TAVR.

scholarly journals Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) in Low Flow-Low Gradient Severe Aortic Stenosis without Cardiac Reserve

2017 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anuraj Sudhakaran ◽  
Mahek Shah ◽  
Aparna Baburaj ◽  
Brijesh Patel ◽  
Matthew Martinez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Low Flow ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Contractile Reserve ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve

<p>With accumulating positive evidence in favour of <em>transcatheter aortic valve replacement</em> (TAVR) over a surgical <em>approach</em>, it has replaced surgical AVR to become the mainstay of treatment for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis in patients with prohibitive and high surgical risk. There is significant surgical mortality and morbidity associated with surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with low flow-low gradient (LFLG) true severe aortic valve stenosis (AS) and severely reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (rEF) without contractile reserve (CR). CR is measured following use of dobutamine in an attempt to increase cardiac output by more than 20% while differentiating severe from pseudostenosis in some cases. The value of <em>transcatheter aortic valve replacement</em> (TAVR) over a surgical <em>approach</em> for these patients with rEF LFLG true severe AS and no CR is uncertain. We present a patient with LFLG severe AS and low left ventricular EF without contractile reserve who underwent TAVR and experienced significant improvement in their clinical status without complications.</p>

True-severe stenosis in paradoxical low-flow low-gradient aortic stenosis: outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taishi Okuno ◽  
Noé Corpataux ◽  
Giancarlo Spano ◽  
Christoph Gräni ◽  
Dik Heg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Functional Status ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Low Flow ◽  
Aortic Valve Area ◽  
High Gradient ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve

Abstract Aims The ESC/EACTS guidelines propose criteria that determine the likelihood of true-severe aortic stenosis (AS). We aimed to investigate the impact of the guideline-based criteria of the likelihood of true-severe AS in patients with low-flow low-gradient (LFLG) AS with preserved ejection fraction (pEF) on outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Methods and results In a prospective TAVR registry, LFLG-AS patients with pEF were retrospectively categorized into high (criteria ≥6) and intermediate (criteria &lt;6) likelihood of true-severe AS. Haemodynamic, functional, and clinical outcomes were compared with high-gradient AS patients with pEF. Among 632 eligible patients, 202 fulfilled diagnostic criteria for LFLG-AS. Significant haemodynamic improvement after TAVR was observed in LFLG-AS patients, irrespective of the likelihood. Although &gt;70% of LFLG-AS patients had functional improvement, impaired functional status [New York Heart Association (NYHA III/IV)] persisted more frequently at 1 year in LFLG-AS than in high-gradient AS patients (7.8%), irrespective of the likelihood (high: 17.4%, P = 0.006; intermediate: 21.1%, P &lt; 0.001). All-cause death at 1 year occurred in 6.6% of high-gradient AS patients, 10.9% of LFLG-AS patients with high likelihood [hazard ratio (HR)adj 1.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68–3.02], and in 7.2% of those with intermediate likelihood (HRadj 0.92, 95% CI 0.39–2.18). Among the criteria, only the absence of aortic valve area ≤0.8 cm2 emerged as an independent predictor of treatment futility, a combined endpoint of all-cause death or NYHA III/IV at 1 year (OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.14–6.25). Conclusion Patients with LFLG-AS with pEF had comparable survival but worse functional status at 1 year than high-gradient AS with pEF, irrespective of the likelihood of true-severe AS. Clinical Trial Registration https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. NCT01368250.

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.

Meta-analysis and meta-regression of early aortic valve replacement versus watchful waiting in asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis: a 2020 boost of evidence

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
G Costa ◽  
B Oliveiros ◽  
L Goncalves ◽  
R Teixeira
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Watchful Waiting ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Meta Regression

Abstract Background Current guidelines recommend aortic-valve replacement (AVR) as the only effective therapy for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) patients. Nevertheless, management and timing of intervention in asymptomatic AS remains a controversial topic, with sparse evidence to support the recommendations (level C). Purpose To assess an early-AVR strategy in asymptomatic severe AS, comparing it with a watchful waiting (WW) strategy Methods We systematically searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases, in February 2020, for both interventional or observational studies comparing early-AVR with WW in the treatment of asymptomatic severe AS. Random-effects meta-analysis for early-AVR and WW were performed. Meta-regression was used to assess the influence of study characteristics on the outcome. Results Eight studies were included (seven registry-based or unrandomized studies and one randomized clinical trial) providing a total of 3985 patients, and 1232 pooled all-cause deaths (172 in early-AVR and 1060 in watchful waiting). Meta-analysis showed a significantly lower all-cause mortality for the early-AVR compared with WW group (pooled OR 0.24 [0.17, 0.32], P&lt;0.01) although with a moderate amount of heterogeneity between studies in the magnitude of effect (I2=57%, P=0.02). The early-AVR patients also displayed a lower cardiovascular mortality (pooled OR 0.27 [0.15, 0.48], P&lt;0.01) plus a lower heart failure hospitalization rate (pooled OR 0.27 [0.06, 0.65], P&lt;0.007). No difference in clinical thromboembolic event rate (stroke or myocardial infarction) was noted. The meta-regression for all cause mortality based on possible confounders such as time of follow-up, age, gender, diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, left ventricular ejection fraction, and mean peak aortic jet velocity showed that effect sizes reported by the individual studies seem to be independent from the covariates considered (P&gt;0.05). Conclusions Our 2020 pooled data reinforces the previous evidence suggesting the benefit of early-AVR in asymptomatic patients with severe AS. Early AVR vs WW, All-cause death Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document