scholarly journals Relationship Between the Ratio of Acceleration Time/Ejection Time and Mortality in Patients With High‐Gradient Severe Aortic Stenosis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandre Altes ◽  
Nicolas Thellier ◽  
Yohann Bohbot ◽  
Anne Ringle Griguer ◽  
Stéphane Verdun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Mortality Risk ◽  
Severe Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Prognostic Impact ◽  
Ejection Time ◽  
High Gradient ◽  
Acceleration Time ◽  
The Impact

Background The ratio of acceleration time/ejection time (AT/ET) is a simple and reproducible echocardiographic parameter that integrates aortic stenosis severity and its consequences on the left ventricle. No study has specifically assessed the prognostic impact of AT/ET on outcome in patients with high‐gradient severe aortic stenosis (SAS) and no or mild symptoms. We sought to evaluate the relationship between AT/ET and mortality and determine the best predictive AT/ET cutoff value in these patients. Methods and Results A total of 353 patients (median age, 79 years; 46% women) with high‐gradient (mean pressure gradient ≥40 mm Hg and/or aortic peak jet velocity ≥4 m/s) SAS, left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50%, and no or mild symptoms were studied. The impact of AT/ET ≤0.35 or >0.35 on all‐cause mortality was retrospectively studied. During a median follow‐up of 39 (25th–75th percentile, 23–62) months, 70 patients died. AT/ET >0.35 was associated with a considerable increased mortality risk after adjustment for established prognostic factors in SAS under medical and/or surgical management (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 2.54; 95% CI, 1.47–4.37; P <0.001) or conservative management (adjusted HR, 3.29; 95% CI, 1.70–6.39; P <0.001). Moreover, AT/ET >0.35 improved the predictive performance of models including established risk factors in SAS with better global model fit, reclassification, and discrimination. After propensity matching, increased mortality risk persisted when AT/ET >0.35 (adjusted HR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.12–3.90; P <0.001). Conclusions AT/ET >0.35 is a strong predictor of outcome in patients with SAS and no or only mild symptoms and identifies a subgroup of patients at higher risk of death who may derive benefit from earlier aortic valve replacement.

scholarly journals IMPULSE: the impact of gender on the presentation and management of aortic stenosis across Europe

Open Heart ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. e001443
Author(s):  
Richard Paul Steeds ◽  
David Messika-Zeitoun ◽  
Jeetendra Thambyrajah ◽  
Antonio Serra ◽  
Eberhard Schulz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Severe Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Patient Profile ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve ◽  
The Impact

AimsThere is an increasing awareness of gender-related differences in patients with severe aortic stenosis and their outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).MethodsData from the IMPULSE registry were analysed. Patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) were enrolled between March 2015 and April 2017 and stratified by gender. A subgroup analysis was performed to assess the impact of age.ResultsOverall, 2171 patients were enrolled, and 48.0% were female. Women were characterised by a higher rate of renal impairment (31.7 vs 23.3%; p<0.001), were at higher surgical risk (EuroSCORE II: 4.5 vs 3.6%; p=0.001) and more often in a critical preoperative state (7.0vs 4.2%; p=0.003). Men had an increased rate of previous cardiac surgery (9.4 vs 4.7%; p<0.001) and a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (4.9 vs 1.3%; p<0.001). Concomitant mitral and tricuspid valve disease was substantially more common among women. Symptoms were highly prevalent in both women and men (83.6 vs 77.3%; p<0.001). AVR was planned in 1379 cases. Women were more frequently scheduled to undergo TAVI (49.3 vs 41.0%; p<0.001) and less frequently for SAVR (20.3 vs 27.5%; p<0.001).ConclusionsThe present data show that female patients with severe AS have a distinct patient profile and are managed in a different way to males. Gender-based differences in the management of patients with severe AS need to be taken into account more systematically to improve outcomes, especially for women.

scholarly journals Impact of selected comorbidities on the presentation and management of aortic stenosis

Open Heart ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. e001271 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tanja K. Rudolph ◽  
David Messika-Zeitoun ◽  
Norbert Frey ◽  
Jeetendra Thambyrajah ◽  
Antonio Serra ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Severe Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Time Period ◽  
Comorbidity Burden ◽  
The Impact

BackgroundContemporary data regarding the impact of comorbidities on the clinical presentation and management of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) are scarce.MethodsProspective registry of severe patients with AS across 23 centres in nine European countries.ResultsOf the 2171 patients, chronic kidney disease (CKD 27.3%), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <50% (22.0%), atrial fibrillation (15.9%) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (11.4%) were the most prevalent comorbidities (49.3% none, 33.9% one and 16.8% ≥2 of these). The decision to perform aortic valve replacement (AVR) was taken in a comparable proportion (67%, 72% and 69%, in patients with 0, 1 and ≥2 comorbidities; p=0.186). However, the decision for TAVI was more common with more comorbidities (35.4%, 54.0% and 57.0% for no, 1 and ≥2; p<0.001), while the decision for surgical AVR (SAVR) was decreased with increasing comorbidity burden (31.9%, 17.4% and 12.3%; p<0.001). The proportion of patients with planned AVRs that were performed within 3 months was significantly higher in patients with 1 or ≥2 comorbidities than in those without (8.7%, 10.0% and 15.7%; p<0.001). Furthermore, the mean time to AVR was significantly shorter in patients with one (30.5 days) or ≥2 comorbidities (30.8 days) than in those without (35.7 days; p=0.012). Patients with reduced LVEF tended to be offered an AVR more frequently and with a shorter delay while patients with CKD were less frequently treated.ConclusionsComorbidities in severe patients with AS affect the presentation and management of patients with severe AS. TAVI was offered more often than SAVR and performed within a shorter time period.

scholarly journals B-type natriuretic peptide in patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis

Heart ◽  
2018 ◽  
pp. heartjnl-2018-313746 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenji Nakatsuma ◽  
Tomohiko Taniguchi ◽  
Takeshi Morimoto ◽  
Hiroki Shiomi ◽  
Kenji Ando ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Natriuretic Peptide ◽  
Event Rate ◽  
Severe Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Prognostic Impact ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Asymptomatic Patients

ObjectivesWe sought to evaluate the prognostic impact of the B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels in patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS), who were not referred for aortic valve replacement (AVR).MethodsWe used data from a Japanese multicentre registry, the Contemporary outcomes after sURgery and medical tREatmeNT in patients with severe Aortic Stenosis Registry, which enrolled 3815 consecutive patients with severe AS. Of those, 387 asymptomatic patients who were not referred for AVR without left ventricular dysfunction and very severe AS were subdivided into four groups based on their BNP levels (BNP<100 pg/mL, n=201; 100≤BNP<200 pg/mL, n=94; 200≤BNP<300 pg/mL, n=42 and BNP>300 pg/mL, n=50).ResultsThe cumulative 5-year incidence of AS-related events (aortic valve-related death or heart failure hospitalisation) was incrementally higher with increasing BNP level (14.2%, 29.6%, 46.3% and 47.0%, p<0.001). After adjusting for confounders, the risk for AS-related events was incrementally greater with increasing BNP levels (HR: 1.97, 95% CI: 0.97 to 3.98, p=0.06; HR: 3.59, 95% CI: 1.55 to 8.32, p=0.03 and HR: 7.38, 95% CI: 3.21 to 16.9, p<0.001, respectively). Notably, asymptomatic patients with BNPlevels of <100 pg/mL had an event rate of only 2.1% at 1 year.ConclusionsIncreased BNP level was associated with a higher risk for AS-related adverse events in patients with asymptomatic severe AS with normal left ventricular ejection fraction who were not referred for AVR. Asymptomatic patients with BNP levels of <100 pg/mL had relatively low event rate, who might be safely followed with watchful waiting strategy.Trail registration numberUMIN000012140.

scholarly journals Moderate gradient severe aortic stenosis: diagnosis, prognosis and therapy

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (Supplement_E) ◽  
pp. E133-E137
Author(s):  
Vittoria Rizzello
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Severe Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Calcium Score ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Low Flow ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Diagnostic Tools ◽  
Prognostic Impact ◽  
Aortic Valve Area ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction

Abstract Aortic stenosis (AS) is defined as severe in the presence of: mean gradient ≥40 mmHg, peak aortic velocity ≥4 m/s, and aortic valve area (AVA) ≤1 cm2 (or an indexed AVA ≤0.6 cm2/m2). However, up to 40% of patients have a discrepancy between gradient and AVA, i.e. AVA ≤1 cm2 (indicating severe AS) and a moderate gradient: &gt;20 and &lt;40 mmHg (typical of moderate stenosis). This condition is called ‘low-gradient AS’ and includes very heterogeneous clinical entities, with different pathophysiological mechanisms. The diagnostic tools needed to discriminate the different low-gradient AS phenotypes include colour-Doppler echocardiography, dobutamine stress echocardiography, computed tomography scan for the definition of the calcium score, and recently magnetic resonance imaging. The prognostic impact of low-gradient AS is heterogeneous. Classical low-flow low-gradient AS [reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF)] has the worst prognosis, followed by paradoxical low-flow low-gradient AS (preserved LVEF). Conversely, normal-flow low-gradient AS is associated with a better prognosis. The indications of the guidelines recommend surgical or percutaneous treatment, depending on the risk and comorbidities of the individual patient, both for patients with classic low-flow low-gradient AS and for those with paradoxical low-flow low-gradient AS.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document