scholarly journals Clinical Value of Stress Transaortic Flow Rate During Dobutamine Echocardiography in Reduced Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction, Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis: A Multicenter Study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anastasia Vamvakidou ◽  
Mohamed-Salah Annabi ◽  
Phillipe Pibarot ◽  
Edyta Plonska-Gosciniak ◽  
Ana G. Almeida ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Aortic Valve Area ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Valve Area

Background: Low rest transaortic flow rate (FR) has been shown previously to predict mortality in low-gradient aortic stenosis. However limited prognostic data exists on stress FR during low-dose dobutamine stress echocardiography. We aimed to assess the value of stress FR for the detection of aortic valve stenosis (AS) severity and the prediction of mortality. Methods: This is a multicenter cohort study of patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction and low-gradient aortic stenosis (aortic valve area <1 cm 2 and mean gradient <40 mm Hg) who underwent low-dose dobutamine stress echocardiography to identify the AS severity and presence of flow reserve. The outcome assessed was all-cause mortality. Results: Of the 287 patients (mean age, 75±10 years; males, 71%; left ventricular ejection fraction, 31±10%) over a mean follow-up of 24±30 months there were 127 (44.3%) deaths and 147 (51.2%) patients underwent aortic valve intervention. Higher stress FR was independently associated with reduced risk of mortality (hazard ratio, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.94–0.99]; P =0.01) after adjusting for age, chronic kidney disease, heart failure symptoms, aortic valve intervention, and rest left ventricular ejection fraction. The minimum cutoff for prediction of mortality was stress FR 210 mL/s. Following adjustment to the same important clinical and echocardiographic parameters, among the three criteria of AS severity during stress, ie, the guideline definition of aortic valve area <1cm 2 and aortic valve mean gradient ≥40 mm Hg, or aortic valve mean gradient ≥40 mm Hg, or the novel definition of aortic valve area <1 cm 2 at stress FR ≥210 mL/s, only the latter was independently associated with mortality (hazard ratio, 1.72 [95% CI, 1.05–2.82]; P =0.03). Furthermore aortic valve area <1cm 2 at stress FR ≥210 mL/s was the only severe aortic stenosis criterion that was associated with improved outcome following aortic valve intervention ( P <0.001). Guideline-defined stroke volume flow reserve did not predict mortality. Conclusions: Stress FR during low-dose dobutamine stress echocardiography was useful for the detection of both AS severity and flow reserve and was associated with improved prediction of outcome following aortic valve intervention.

scholarly journals Dimensionless Index in Patients With Low-Gradient Severe Aortic Stenosis and Preserved Ejection Fraction

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (10) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandre Altes ◽  
Nicolas Thellier ◽  
Dan Rusinaru ◽  
Wassima Marsou ◽  
Yohann Bohbot ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Hazard Ratio ◽  
Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Aortic Valve Area ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Valve Area

Background Risk stratification of patients with low-gradient (LG) severe aortic stenosis (AS) despite preserved left ventricular ejection fraction remains challenging. We sought to evaluate the relationship between the dimensionless index (DI)—the ratio of the left ventricular outflow tract time-velocity integral to that of the aortic valve jet—and mortality in these patients. Methods Seven hundred fifty-five patients with LG severe AS (defined by aortic valve area ≤1 cm 2 or aortic valve area indexed to body surface area ≤0.6 cm 2 /m 2 and mean aortic pressure gradient <40 mm Hg) and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50% were studied. Flow status was defined according to stroke volume index <35 mL/m 2 (low flow, LF) or ≥35 mL/m 2 (normal flow, NF). Results After adjustment for age, sex, body mass index, Charlson comorbidity index, history of hypertension, history of atrial fibrillation, AS-related symptoms, left ventricular ejection fraction, indexed left ventricular ventricular mass, aortic valve area, and aortic valve replacement as a time-dependent covariate, patients with LG-LF and DI<0.25 exhibited a considerable increased risk of death compared with patients with LG-NF and DI≥0.25 (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.41 [95% CI, 1.61–3.62]; P <0.001), LG-NF and DI<0.25 (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.84 [95% CI, 1.24–2.73]; P =0.003), and LG-LF and D≥0.25 (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.27 [95% CI, 1.42–3.63]; P <0.001). In contrast, patients with LG-LF and DI≥0.25, LG-NF and DI<0.25, and LG-NF and DI≥0.25 had similar outcome. DI<0.25 showed incremental prognostic value in patients with LG-LF severe AS but not in patients with LG-NF severe AS. Conclusions Among patients with LG severe AS and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, decreased DI<0.25 is a reliable parameter in patients with LF to identify a subgroup of patients at higher risk of death who may derive benefit from aortic valve replacement.

scholarly journals Prognostic value of left ventricular ejection fraction and symptom severity in patients with moderate aortic stenosis

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
J Stassen ◽  
S C Butcher ◽  
K Hirasawa ◽  
G K Singh ◽  
S M Pio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Symptom Severity ◽  
Nyha Class ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction

Abstract Background Moderate aortic stenosis (MAS) is associated with an increased risk of adverse events. Risk assessment in these patients, however, has not been thoroughly investigated. Purpose To investigate the independent determinants of survival in patients with MAS, stratified by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and severity of symptoms at the time of first diagnosis. Methods Patients with an echocardiographic diagnosis of tricuspid MAS (aortic valve area &gt;1.0 and ≤1.5cm2) were identified. Patients were stratified by LVEF (LVEF ≥60%, LVEF 50–59%, or LVEF &lt;50%) and NYHA functional class (NYHA I, NYHA II, or NYHA III-IV) at time of MAS diagnosis. The relationship between LVEF, NYHA Class, and the composite of death or aortic valve replacement (AVR) was explored using univariable and multivariable proportional hazards regression. Results Of 2003 patients with MAS (mean age 73±10 years, 51% men, AVA 1.22±0.15 cm2), 1063 (53%), had LVEF≥60%, 550 (27%) LVEF 50–59% and 390 (20%) LVEF&lt;50%. Among 1763 patients with available NYHA class data, 1036 (59%) patients were in NYHA I, 435 (25%) in NYHA II and 292 (16%) in NYHA III-IV. During a median follow-up of 34 (13–60) months, 1323 (67.1%) patients underwent AVR (31.1%) or died (36.0%) without AVR. Patients with LVEF&lt;50% and within the 50–59% range had significantly higher event rates compared with patients with an LVEF≥60% (log rank p&lt;0.001; figure 1A). Likewise, patients with NYHA II and NYHA III-IV had significantly worse outcomes compared with patients in NYHA I (log rank p&lt;0.001, figure 1B). On multivariable analysis, LVEF 50–59% (HR: 1.17; 95% CI: 1.02 – 1.35; p=0.028), LVEF &lt;50% (HR: 1.36; 95% CI: 1.15 – 1.61; p&lt;0.001), NYHA II (HR: 1.84; 95% CI: 1.59 – 2.13; p&lt;0.001) and NYHA III-IV (HR: 2.38; 95% CI: 2.03 – 2.79; p&lt;0.001) were independently associated with worse outcome (figure 2). Conclusions Baseline LVEF and symptom severity are associated with worse outcomes in patients with MAS. Although current guidelines recommend conservative management for MAS, randomized trials appear warranted to determine whether AVR at an earlier stage would be beneficial in these patients. FUNDunding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Other. Main funding source(s): ESC Training Grant Appehab724.157064741 Figure 1. Kaplan-Meier outcome curves Figure 2. Cox regression analysis

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document