Development of paradoxical low-flow, low-gradient severe aortic stenosis

Objective Among patients with severe aortic stenosis (sAS) and preserved LVEF, those with low-flow, low-gradient sAS (LFLG-sAS) have an adverse prognosis. It has been proposed that LFLG-sAS represents an end-stage point of sAS, but longitudinal information has not been described. The aim was to determine whether LFLG-sAS represents an end-stage consequence of normal-flow, high-gradient sAS (NFHG-sAS) or a different entity. Methods From our transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) database, we identified patients with sAS (aortic valve area <1 cm2) and preserved LVEF (≥50%), and from these, patients with LFLG-sAS (stroke volume index <35 mL/m2 and mean transvalvular gradient <40 mm Hg) who had ≥1 additional TTE within five years prior to the index TTE. Patients were age/sex/date matched 2:1 with patients with NFHG-sAS and normal-flow, low-gradient (NFLG)-sAS who also had ≥1 TTE. Included were 1203 TTEs (383 index studies and 820 preceding studies). Results In 78 patients with LFLG-sAS, an HG stage preceded the index TTE in only 4 (5%). During the five years preceding the index TTE, patients with LFLG-sAS developed increasing relative wall thickness (0.42 to 0.49; p<0.001) without change in LV mass index. Patients with NFHG-sAS had a marked increase in LV mass index (87 to 115 g/m2; p<0.001). Patients with LFLG-sAS demonstrated the greatest reduction in LV end-diastolic diameters (−3 vs −1 for NFLG-sAS vs +2 mm for NFHG-sAS; p=0.001), deceleration time (−55 vs −3 vs +3 ms, respectively; p<0.01) and LVEF (−4 vs 0 vs 0%, respectively; p=0.01). Conclusions LFLG-sAS is a distinct presentation of sAS preceded by a unique remodelling pathway and is uncommonly preceded by an HG stage.

[1]  B. Gerber,et al.  Natural History of Paradoxical Low-Gradient Severe Aortic Stenosis , 2014, Circulation. Cardiovascular imaging.

[2]  Thoralf M Sundt,et al.  2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. , 2014, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[3]  Thoralf M Sundt,et al.  2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. , 2014, Circulation.

[4]  P. Pibarot,et al.  The complex nature of discordant severe calcified aortic valve disease grading: new insights from combined Doppler echocardiographic and computed tomographic study. , 2013, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[5]  B. Gerber,et al.  Aortic Valve Area, Stroke Volume, Left Ventricular Hypertrophy, Remodeling, and Fibrosis in Aortic Stenosis Assessed by Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Comparison Between High and Low Gradient and Normal and Low Flow Aortic Stenosis , 2013, Circulation. Cardiovascular imaging.

[6]  P. Pellikka,et al.  Flow-Gradient Patterns in Severe Aortic Stenosis With Preserved Ejection Fraction: Clinical Characteristics and Predictors of Survival , 2013, Circulation.

[7]  R. Nishimura,et al.  Invasive Measures of Afterload in Low Gradient Severe Aortic Stenosis With Preserved Ejection Fraction , 2013, Circulation. Heart failure.

[8]  J. Hung,et al.  Differential left ventricular remodelling and longitudinal function distinguishes low flow from normal-flow preserved ejection fraction low-gradient severe aortic stenosis. , 2013, European heart journal.

[9]  P. Pibarot,et al.  Low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis with normal and depressed left ventricular ejection fraction. , 2012, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[10]  P. Pibarot,et al.  Outcome of patients with aortic stenosis, small valve area, and low-flow, low-gradient despite preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. , 2012, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[11]  Erwan Donal,et al.  Low-Flow, Low-Gradient Severe Aortic Stenosis Despite Normal Ejection Fraction Is Associated With Severe Left Ventricular Dysfunction as Assessed by Speckle-Tracking Echocardiography: A Multicenter Study , 2012, Circulation. Cardiovascular imaging.

[12]  P. Pibarot,et al.  Paradoxical low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis adding new pieces to the puzzle. , 2011, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[13]  M. Beer,et al.  Low-gradient aortic valve stenosis myocardial fibrosis and its influence on function and outcome. , 2011, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[14]  E. Donal,et al.  Impact of global left ventricular afterload on left ventricular function in asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis: a two-dimensional speckle-tracking study. , 2010, European journal of echocardiography : the journal of the Working Group on Echocardiography of the European Society of Cardiology.

[15]  F. Flachskampf,et al.  Recommendations for the evaluation of left ventricular diastolic function by echocardiography. , 2008, European journal of echocardiography : the journal of the Working Group on Echocardiography of the European Society of Cardiology.

[16]  T. Sundt,et al.  A CD Surgery for Acquired Cardiovascular Disease Brown et al The benefits of early valve replacement in asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis , 2022 .

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

[18]  Richard B Devereux,et al.  Recommendations for chamber quantification: a report from the American Society of Echocardiography's Guidelines and Standards Committee and the Chamber Quantification Writing Group, developed in conjunction with the European Association of Echocardiography, a branch of the European Society of Cardio , 2005, Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography : official publication of the American Society of Echocardiography.

[19]  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.

[20]  M. Nieminen,et al.  Left ventricular filling patterns in patients with systemic hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy (the LIFE study) , 2000 .

[21]  D. Levy,et al.  Comparison of enalapril versus nifedipine to decrease left ventricular hypertrophy in systemic hypertension (the PRESERVE trial). , 1996, The American journal of cardiology.

[22]  J. Laragh,et al.  Patterns of left ventricular hypertrophy and geometric remodeling in essential hypertension. , 1992, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[23]  Youshouzhai Gu Echo , 1980, The Craft of Poetry.

[24]  L. Cohn,et al.  Hemodynamic Determinants of Prognosis of Aortic Valve Replacement in Critical Aortic Stenosis and Advanced Congestive Heart Failure , 1980, Circulation.

[25]  J. Chambers,et al.  Echocardiographic assessment of valve stenosis: EAE/ASE recommendations for clinical practice. , 2009, Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography : official publication of the American Society of Echocardiography.