New approaches to quantifying aortic stenosis severity

Previously, aortic valve stenosis (AS) etiology was usually congenital or due to rheumatic disease. However, the most frequent cause is now degenerative AS, which is often part of a continuum including increased rigidity of the aorta due to atherosclerosis and left ventricular dysfunction due to coronary artery disease. This article highlights newer approaches to quantify AS taking into account the inter-relation between the different components (valvular, vascular, and ventricular) affecting clinical outcome in these patients. Emphasis is given to a more comprehensive evaluation of AS severity going beyond classical measurements and including indices such as 1) the energy loss index to quantify the valvular obstruction net of pressure recovery; 2) systemic arterial compliance to quantify vascular load; and 3) valvulo-arterial impedance to assess the global (valvular + vascular) increase in afterload. Routine use of these indices, easily measured by Doppler echocardiography, should improve clinical management of AS patients.

[1]  A. Yoganathan,et al.  Energy loss for evaluating heart valve performance. , 2008, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[2]  P. Pibarot,et al.  Assessment of aortic valve stenosis severity: A new index based on the energy loss concept. , 2000, Circulation.

[3]  Projected Valve Area at Normal Flow Rate Improves the Assessment of Stenosis Severity in Patients With Low-Flow, Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis: The Multicenter TOPAS (Truly or Pseudo-Severe Aortic Stenosis) Study , 2006 .

[4]  J. Chambers,et al.  Crossing the aortic valve in severe aortic stenosis: no longer acceptable? , 2004, The Journal of heart valve disease.

[5]  Damien Garcia,et al.  Impact of systemic hypertension on the assessment of aortic stenosis , 2005, Heart.

[6]  R. Bonow,et al.  Human degenerative valve disease is associated with up-regulation of low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 5 receptor-mediated bone formation. , 2006, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[7]  P. Pibarot,et al.  Prosthesis-patient mismatch: definition, clinical impact, and prevention , 2005, Heart.

[8]  C. Yancy,et al.  Usefulness of dobutamine echocardiography in distinguishing severe from nonsevere valvular aortic stenosis in patients with depressed left ventricular function and low transvalvular gradients. , 1995, The American journal of cardiology.

[9]  Philippe Pibarot,et al.  Impact of Valve Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch on Short-Term Mortality After Aortic Valve Replacement , 2003, Circulation.

[10]  Damien Garcia,et al.  Reduced systemic arterial compliance impacts significantly on left ventricular afterload and function in aortic stenosis: implications for diagnosis and treatment. , 2005, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[11]  S. Little,et al.  Impact of blood pressure on the Doppler echocardiographic assessment of severity of aortic stenosis , 2006, Heart.

[12]  P. Pibarot,et al.  Value and limitations of peak-to-peak gradient for evaluation of aortic stenosis. , 2006, The Journal of heart valve disease.

[13]  J. Després,et al.  Association Between Plasma LDL Particle Size, Valvular Accumulation of Oxidized LDL, and Inflammation in Patients With Aortic Stenosis , 2007, Arteriosclerosis, thrombosis, and vascular biology.

[14]  P. Pibarot,et al.  Comparison of valve resistance with effective orifice area regarding flow dependence. , 2001, The American journal of cardiology.

[15]  Damien Garcia,et al.  Discrepancies between catheter and Doppler estimates of valve effective orifice area can be predicted from the pressure recovery phenomenon: practical implications with regard to quantification of aortic stenosis severity. , 2003, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[16]  J. Bermejo,et al.  Low-gradient aortic valve stenosis: value and limitations of dobutamine stress testing , 2006, Heart.

[17]  C. Otto,et al.  Apolipoproteins B, (a), and E accumulate in the morphologically early lesion of 'degenerative' valvular aortic stenosis. , 1996, Arteriosclerosis, thrombosis, and vascular biology.

[18]  P. Pibarot,et al.  Assessment of aortic stenosis severity: check the valve but don’t forget the arteries! , 2007, Heart.

[19]  Damien Garcia,et al.  What do you mean by aortic valve area: geometric orifice area, effective orifice area, or gorlin area? , 2006, The Journal of heart valve disease.

[20]  K. Chan,et al.  Hemodynamic stability of valve area, valve resistance, and stroke work loss in aortic stenosis: a comparative analysis. , 2002, Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography : official publication of the American Society of Echocardiography.

[21]  Philippe Pibarot,et al.  Paradoxical Low-Flow, Low-Gradient Severe Aortic Stenosis Despite Preserved Ejection Fraction Is Associated With Higher Afterload and Reduced Survival , 2007 .

[22]  A. Nemes,et al.  Decreased aortic distensibility and coronary flow velocity reserve in patients with significant aortic valve stenosis with normal epicardial coronary arteries. , 2004, The Journal of heart valve disease.

[23]  C. Tribouilloy,et al.  Influence of Preoperative Left Ventricular Contractile Reserve on Postoperative Ejection Fraction in Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis , 2006, Circulation.

[24]  G Maurer,et al.  "Overestimation" of catheter gradients by Doppler ultrasound in patients with aortic stenosis: a predictable manifestation of pressure recovery. , 1999, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[25]  H. Baumgartner,et al.  B-Type Natriuretic Peptide in Low-Flow, Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis: Relationship to Hemodynamics and Clinical Outcome: Results From the Multicenter Truly or Pseudo-Severe Aortic Stenosis (TOPAS) Study , 2007, Circulation.