Impact of Surgical and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis

Outcomes of surgical versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to determine the impact of surgical versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis.

METHODS

This was an observational study of consecutive aortic valve replacements for severe aortic stenosis from 2010 to 2023. Patients with low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis (aortic valve mean gradient <40 mm Hg and a stroke volume index <35 mL/m2) were included. Both classical (ejection fraction <50%) and paradoxical (ejection fraction ≥50%) subtypes were included. Concomitant procedures and history of aortic valve replacement were excluded. Patients were dichotomized by intervention.

RESULTS

A total of 575 patients underwent isolated, first-time aortic valve replacement for low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis, of whom 248 (43%) were low operative risk (Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality <4%). A total of 131 patients (52.8%) underwent surgical aortic valve replacement, and 117 patients (47.2%) underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Those undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement were older than those undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement: 79.0 [76.0-84.0] years versus 66.0 [59.0-73.0] years (P < .001). The incidence of 30-day mortality, stroke, and pacemaker was not different across each group, but the incidence of paravalvular leak was higher in the transcatheter aortic valve replacement group. At 1-year follow-up, aortic valve mean gradient (9.0 [7.0-12.0] mm Hg) and ejection fraction (55.0% [40.0-60.0]) were no different across each group. On multivariable analysis, transcatheter aortic valve replacement was not associated with an increased hazard of death compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (hazard ratio, 1.38, 95% CI, 0.72-2.66, P = .34) or an increased hazard of heart failure readmission (hazard ratio, 1.70, 95% CI, 0.88-3.30, P = .11) compared with surgical aortic valve replacement.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis, surgical and transcatheter approaches to aortic valve replacement may be equally as advantageous with respect to long-term outcomes.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement outcomes in patients with high gradient versus low ejection fraction low gradient severe aortic stenosis: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The outcome of Low Flow-Low Gradient (LF-LG) severe aortic stenosis (AS) patients who underwent Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) procedure is not well defined. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to compare the outcomes of TAVR in LF-LG AS patients to the more traditional high gradient (HG) aortic stenosis.

METHODS

We comprehensively searched for controlled randomized and non-randomized studies from 4 online databases. We are presenting the data using risk ratios (95 % confidence intervals) and measuring heterogeneity using Higgins' I2 index.

RESULTS

Our analysis included 4380 patients with 3425 HG patients and 955 LF-LG patients from 6 cohort (5 retrospective and 1 prospective) studies. When compared to LFLG; TAVR was associated with significantly lower 30 days mortality in HG patients (5.1 % vs 7.4 %; relative risk [RR]: 0.55; 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.35 to 0.86; p < 0.01). Similar findings were also observed in 12-month cardiovascular (CV) mortality (5.5 % vs. 10.4 %; RR: 0.47; 95 % CI: 0.38 to 0.60; p < 0.01 and 12-month all-cause mortality (15.9 % vs 20.9 %; RR: 0.70; 95 % CI: 0.49 to 1.00; p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in myocardial infarction (MI) after TAVR between HG and LF-LG at 30 days (0.16 % vs. 0.95 %; p < 0.09) or 12 months (0.43 % vs. 0.95 %; p = 0.20). Similarly, there was no difference in stroke rates at 30 days (2.9 % vs. 2.86 %) or at 12 months (3.6 % vs. 3.06 %).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Patients with LF-LG severe AS who underwent TAVR had worse 1-year all-cause mortality, 30-day all-cause, and 1-year CV mortality when compared to TAVR in HG severe AS. There was no difference in MI or stroke rates. Therefore, with heart team discussion and informed patient decision regarding the risk and benefit, TAVR would still offer better outcomes in LFLG AS compared to conservative medical management.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Beyond Severe Aortic Stenosis: JACC State-of-the-Art Review

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become the preferred treatment option in appropriate patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS). A number of advancements have since expanded the eligible population to bicuspid aortic valve with feasible anatomy; small aortic annuli; low-flow, low-gradient AS; and younger patients. Focus has also shifted beyond the symptomatic severe patients to asymptomatic severe and moderate AS, as early valve replacement may prevent irreversible cardiac remodeling. Dedicated devices to treat native aortic regurgitation have shown encouraging short-term outcomes. While the expansion of TAVR to younger patients has raised questions about valve durability and feasibility of reintervention, valve-in-valve TAVR has thus far shown encouraging midterm results. In this review, we summarize the evidence in these contemporary TAVR populations, exploring both the promise and challenge of broadening the patient pool for this minimally invasive procedure.

Effects of aortic valve calcification on transcatheter aortic valve replacement for low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis

BACKGROUND

Patients with low-flow, low-gradient (LFLG) aortic stenosis (AS) have precarious hemodynamics and are a fragile population for intervention. Quantification of aortic valve calcification (AVC) severity is a critical component of the evaluation for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR); this study aims to further clarify its utility for risk stratification in LFLG AS.

METHODS

This retrospective study evaluated 467 patients with LFLG AS undergoing TAVR at a large quaternary-care hospital from January 2019 to December 2021. AVC was quantified with Agatston scores using pre-operative computed tomography angiograms. Primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality and heart failure rehospitalization rates.

RESULTS

51 patients (10.9 %) had mild calcification, 137 (29.3 %) had moderate, and 279 (59.7 %) had severe. Increased AVC severity correlated with increased AS severity by aortic valve area (0.69cm2 for mild AVC vs. 0.63cm2 for severe; p ≤0.001), peak velocity (3.1 m/s vs. 3.9 m/s; p ≤0.001), and mean gradient (21 mmHg vs. 36 mmHg; p ≤0.001). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed increased reductions in the primary composite endpoint (p = 0.023) and heart failure rehospitalization rates (p = 0.005) for patients with greater AVC severity undergoing TAVR. Multivariate adjustments confirmed a significant reduction in heart failure rehospitalizations when comparing TAVR outcomes between mild and severe AVC (HR 0.40, 95 % CI 0.18-0.91; p = 0.028). Between the 3 groups, there were no significant differences in adjusted rates of paravalvular leak or other periprocedural complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased AVC in LFLG AS does not correlate clinically with more severe AS by echocardiography. Patients with more severe AVC have less heart failure rehospitalizations and derive greater benefit from TAVR.

A Novel Echocardiographic Parameter to Confirm Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis Severity

Background

In patients with low-gradient (LG) aortic stenosis (AS), confirming disease severity and indication of intervention often requires dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) or aortic valve calcium scoring by computed tomography. We hypothesized that the mean transvalvular pressure gradient to effective orifice area ratio (MG/EOA, in mm Hg/cm2) measured during rest echocardiography identifies true-severe AS (TSAS) and is associated with clinical outcomes in patients with low-flow, LG-AS.

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic and prognostic value of MG/EOA ratio.

Methods

The diagnostic accuracy of MG/EOA ratio to identify TSAS was retrospectively assessed in: 1) an in vitro data set obtained in a circulatory model including 93 experimental conditions; and 2) an in vivo data set of 188 patients from the TOPAS (True or Pseudo-Severe Aortic Stenosis) study (NCT01835028). Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to assess the diagnostic accuracy of MG/EOA ratio for identifying TSAS, and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were performed to assess its association with clinical outcomes.

Results

The optimal cutoff of MG/EOA ratio to identify TSAS in patients with low-flow, LG-AS was ≥25 mm Hg/cm2 (correct classification 85%), as well as in vitro (100%). During a median follow-up of 1.41 ± 0.75 years, 146 (78%) patients met the composite endpoint of aortic valve replacement or all-cause mortality. A MG/EOA ratio ≥25 mm Hg/cm2 was independently associated with an increased risk of the composite endpoint (adjusted HR: 2.36 [95% CI: 1.63-3.42], P < 0.001). The Harell's C-index of MG/EOA was 0.68, equaling projected EOA (0.67) measured by DSE.

Conclusions

MG/EOA ratio can be useful in low-flow, LG-AS to confirm AS severity and may complement DSE or aortic valve calcium scoring.

Randomised study for the Optimal Treatment of symptomatic patients with low-gradient severe Aortic valve Stenosis and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (ROTAS trial)

BACKGROUND

The best management of symptomatic patients with low-gradient (LG) severe aortic stenosis (AS) and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) has not been established. The Randomised study for the Optimal Treatment of symptomatic patients with low-gradient severe Aortic valve Stenosis (ROTAS) trial aimed to assess the superiority of aortic valve replacement (AVR) versus medical treatment (MT) in this specific group of AS patients.

METHODS

Patients with symptomatic LG severe AS and preserved LVEF (>50%) underwent dobutamine stress echocardiography and/or CT-aortic calcium score to confirm AS severity and were then randomised 1:1 to AVR or MT. The primary endpoint was a composite of overall death and/or cardiovascular hospitalisation.

RESULTS

The ROTAS study was stopped early because of insufficient recruitment. In the end, only 52 patients (age 79±7 years; women 54%; NYHA III-IV 27%; median STS score 3.3%) were included in the study. During follow-up (mean: 14±7 months), the primary endpoint occurred in 12 (23%) patients. Compared with MT, AVR was not associated with a significant prognostic benefit (events: 5/26 (19%) vs 7/26 (27%) (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.39, p=0.63). During follow-up, 11 (42%) patients in the MT group developed class I criteria for AVR or severe symptoms justifying a cross-over to the AVR group.

CONCLUSIONS

Because of the small number of included patients and short follow-up the ROTAS trial was underpowered and unable to demonstrate a difference in the study endpoint between treatment arms. In patients in the MT arm, a regular echocardiographic and clinical assessment might be useful to disclose those developing class I indications of AVR or severe AS-related symptoms.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01835028.

Impact of stroke volume assessment by three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography on the classification of low-gradient aortic stenosis

BACKGROUND

Accurate assessment of flow status is crucial in low-gradient aortic stenosis (AS). However, the clinical implication of three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography (3DTEE) on flow status evaluation remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the assessment of flow status using 3D TEE in low-gradient AS patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients diagnosed with low-gradient AS and preserved ejection fraction at our institution between 2019 and 2022. Patients were categorized into low-flow/low-gradient (LF-LG) AS or normal-flow/low-gradient (NF-LG) AS based on two-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography (2DTTE). We compared the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) geometry between the two groups and reclassified them using stroke volume index (SVi) obtained by 3DTEE.

RESULTS

Among 173 patients (105 with LF-LG AS and 68 with NF-LG AS), 54 propensity-matched pairs of patients were analyzed. 3DTEE-derived ellipticity index of LVOT was significantly higher in LF-LG AS patients compared to NF-LG AS patients (p = 0.012). We assessed the discordance in flow status classification between SVi2DTTE and SVi3DTEE in both groups using a cutoff value of 35 ml/m2. The LF-LG AS group exhibited a significantly higher discordance rate compared to the NF-LG AS group, with rates of 50% and 2%, respectively. The optimal cutoff values of SVi3DTEE for identifying low flow status, based on 2DTTE-derived cutoff values, were determined to be 43 ml/m2.

CONCLUSIONS

LVOT ellipticity in low-gradient AS patients varies depending on flow status, and this difference contributes to discrepancies between SVi3DTEE and SVi2DTTE, particularly in LF-LG AS patients. Utilizing SVi3DTEE is valuable for accurately assessing flow status.

Normal-Flow Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis: Comparing the U.S. and European Guidelines

Patients with normal-flow low-gradient (NFLG) severe aortic stenosis present both diagnostic and management challenges, with debate about the whether this represents true severe stenosis and the need for valve replacement. Studies exploring the natural history without intervention have shown similar outcomes of patients with NFLG severe aortic stenosis to those with moderate aortic stenosis and better outcomes after valve replacement than those with low-flow low-gradient severe aortic stenosis. Most studies (all observational) have shown that aortic valve replacement was associated with a survival benefit vs surveillance. Based on available data, the European Society of Cardiology/European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery guidelines and European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging/American Society of Echocardiography suggest that these patients are more likely to have moderate aortic stenosis. This clinical entity is not mentioned in the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines. Here we review the definition of NFLG severe aortic stenosis, potential diagnostic algorithms and points of error, the data supporting different management strategies, and the differing guidelines and outline the unanswered questions in the diagnosis and management of these challenging patients.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement outcomes in patients with low-flow very low-gradient aortic stenosis

AIMS

In patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS), low-flow low-gradient (LG) is a known predictor of worse outcomes. However, very LG may represent a distinct population with further cardiac dysfunction. It is unknown whether this population benefits from transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). We aimed to describe the patient characteristics and clinical outcomes of low-flow very LG severe AS.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This single-centre study included all patients with low-flow severe AS between 2019 and 2021. Patients were divided into groups with very LG [mean pressure gradient (MPG) ≤ 20 mmHg], LG (20 < MPG < 40 mmHg), and high-gradient (HG) (MPG ≥ 40 mmHg). Composite endpoint of all-cause mortality and heart failure rehospitalization was compared. A total of 662 patients [very LG 130 (20%); LG 339 (51%); HG 193 (29%)] were included. Median follow-up was 12 months. Very LG cohort had a higher prevalence of comorbid conditions with lower left ventricular ejection fraction (45% vs. 57% vs. 60%; P < 0.001). There was a graded increase in the risk of composite endpoint in the lower MPG strata (P < 0.001). Among those who underwent TAVR, very LG was an independent predictor of the composite endpoint (adjusted HR 2.42 [1.29-4.55]). While LG and HG cohorts had decreased risk of composite endpoint after TAVR compared with conservative management, very LG was not associated with risk reduction (adjusted HR 0.69 [0.35-1.34]).

CONCLUSION

Low-flow very LG severe AS represents a distinct population with significant comorbidities and worse outcomes. Further studies are needed to evaluate the short- and long-term benefits of TAVR in this population.

Impact of Atrial Fibrillation on the Symptoms and Echocardiographic Evaluation of Patients With Aortic Stenosis

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in patients with aortic stenosis (AS) and complicates the assessment of AS severity. The overlapping of symptoms in these 2 conditions may postpone valve replacement. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of AF on the severity assessment of AS and its impact on symptoms and quality of life (QoL). Patients with severe AS were prospectively recruited. Echocardiography, symptom questionnaires, and RAND-36 QoL assessment were performed preoperatively and 3 months postoperatively. The aortic valve calcium score (AVC) was measured using computed tomography. Of the 279 patients, 74 (26.5%) had AF. Patients with AF had lower mean gradients and 45.9% had a low-gradient phenotype, with a mean gradient <40 mm Hg, compared with 22.4% of those without AF (p <0.001). The AVC measurements revealed severe valve calcification equally in patients with or without AF (85.7% vs 87.7%, p = 0.78). Patients with AF were more symptomatic at baseline, with 50.0% versus 27.3% in New York Heart Association class III or higher (p <0.001), and after intervention. Patients with AF had more residual dyspnea (27.3% vs 12.0%, p = 0.007) and exercise intolerance (36.4% vs 17.0%, p = 0.002). The QoL improved significantly in both groups but was worse at baseline in patients with AF and remained impaired after intervention. In conclusion, low-gradient AS phenotype is overrepresented in patients with AF, but they have equally severe stenosis determined using AVC, despite the lower gradients. Patients with AF have more symptoms and worse QoL, but they improve significantly after intervention. In patients with AF, multimodality imaging is important in the assessment of AS severity.

Cardiac Reversibility and Survival After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients With Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis

Background Prognostic implications of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in low-gradient (LG) aortic stenosis (AS) remain controversial. The authors hypothesized that differences in cardiac functional recovery may solve this ongoing controversy. The aim was to evaluate clinical outcomes and the response of left ventricular (LV) function following TAVI in patients with LG AS. Methods and Results This multicenter retrospective study included 1742 patients with severe AS undergoing TAVI between January 2015 and March 2019. Patients were subdivided into low-flow (LF) LG, normal-flow (NF) LG, LF high-gradient, and NF high-gradient AS groups according to the mean gradient of the aortic valve (LG <40 mm Hg) and LV stroke volume index (LF <35 mL/m2). Outcomes and changes in echocardiographic parameters after TAVI were compared between the groups. A total of 227 patients (13%) had reduced ejection fraction, and 486 patients (28%) had LG AS (LF-LG 143 [8%]; NF-LG 343 [20%]). During a median follow-up period of 747 days, 301 patients experienced a composite end point of cardiovascular death and rehospitalization for cardiovascular events, which was higher in the LF-LG and NF-LG groups than in the high-gradient groups. LG AS was independently associated with the primary outcome (hazard ratio, 1.69; P<0.001). Among 1239 patients with follow-up echocardiography, LG AS showed less improvement in the LV mass index and LV end-diastolic volume compared with high-gradient AS after 1 year, while LV recovery was similar between the LF AS and NF AS groups. Conclusions LG AS was associated with poorer outcomes and LV recovery, regardless of flow status after TAVI. Careful evaluation of AS severity may be required in LG AS to provide TAVI within the appropriate time and advanced care afterward.

Aortic Valve Disease, Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement, and the Heart Failure Patient: A State-of-the-Art Review

Concomitant aortic stenosis (AS) in heart failure (HF) is associated with high rates of mortality and morbidity. Current guidelines recommend aortic valve replacement in patients with severe symptomatic AS and asymptomatic AS with left ventricular ejection fraction <50% and during other cardiac surgeries. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has now allowed for the treatment of severe AS in previously inoperable or high-surgical-risk patients. Leveraging multimodality imaging techniques is increasingly recognized for reinforcing the rationale for intervening early, thus mitigating the risk of ongoing progression to advanced HF. There are increasing data in favor of TAVR in diverse clinical scenarios, particularly asymptomatic AS and moderate AS. Limited information is, however, available regarding the advantages of HF medical therapy before and after intervention. This review aims to comprehensively examine the phenotypes of AS in the context of HF progression, while exploring the evolving role of TAVR in specific populations.

Risk prediction in patients with classical low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis undergoing surgical intervention

Introduction

Classical low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis (LFLG-AS) is an advanced stage of aortic stenosis, which has a poor prognosis with medical treatment and a high operative mortality after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). There is currently a paucity of information regarding the current prognosis of classical LFLG-AS patients undergoing SAVR and the lack of a reliable risk assessment tool for this particular subset of AS patients. The present study aims to assess mortality predictors in a population of classical LFLG-AS patients undergoing SAVR.

Methods

This is a prospective study including 41 consecutive classical LFLG-AS patients (aortic valve area ≤1.0 cm2, mean transaortic gradient <40 mmHg, left ventricular ejection fraction <50%). All patients underwent dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE), 3D echocardiography, and T1 mapping cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR). Patients with pseudo-severe aortic stenosis were excluded. Patients were divided into groups according to the median value of the mean transaortic gradient (≤25 and >25 mmHg). All-cause, intraprocedural, 30-day, and 1-year mortality rates were evaluated.

Results

All of the patients had degenerative aortic stenosis, with a median age of 66 (60-73) years; most of the patients were men (83%). The median EuroSCORE II was 2.19% (1.5%-4.78%), and the median STS was 2.19% (1.6%-3.99%). On DSE, 73.2% had flow reserve (FR), i.e., an increase in stroke volume ≥20% during DSE, with no significant differences between groups. On CMR, late gadolinium enhancement mass was lower in the group with mean transaortic gradient >25 mmHg [2.0 (0.0-8.9) g vs. 8.5 (2.3-15.0) g; p = 0.034), and myocardium extracellular volume (ECV) and indexed ECV were similar between groups. The 30-day and 1-year mortality rates were 14.6% and 43.8%, respectively. The median follow-up was 4.1 (0.3-5.1) years. By multivariate analysis adjusted for FR, only the mean transaortic gradient was an independent predictor of mortality (hazard ratio: 0.923, 95% confidence interval: 0.864-0.986, p = 0.019). A mean transaortic gradient ≤25 mmHg was associated with higher all-cause mortality rates (log-rank p = 0.038), while there was no difference in mortality regarding FR status (log-rank p = 0.114).

Conclusions

In patients with classical LFLG-AS undergoing SAVR, the mean transaortic gradient was the only independent mortality predictor in patients with LFLG-AS, especially if ≤25 mmHg. The absence of left ventricular FR had no prognostic impact on long-term outcomes.

Low-flow, Low-gradient Severe Aortic Stenosis: A Review

Aortic stenosis (AS) is a common valve pathology experienced by patients worldwide. There are limited population-based studies assessing its prevalence; however, epidemiological studies emphasize that the burden of disease is growing. Recognizing AS relies on accurate clinical assessment and diagnostic investigations. Patients who develop severe AS are often referred to the heart team for assessment of aortic valve intervention. Although echocardiography has traditionally been used to screen and monitor the progression of AS, there can be discordance between measurements in a low-flow state. Such patients may have truly severe AS and potentially derive long-term benefit from aortic valve intervention. Accurately identifying these patients with the use of ancillary testing has been the focus of research for several years. In this article, we discuss the contemporary approaches and challenges in identifying and managing patients with low-flow, low-gradient severe AS.

Multimodality imaging methods and systemic biomarkers in classical low-flow low-gradient aortic stenosis: Key findings for risk stratification

Objectives

The aim of the present study is to assess multimodality imaging findings according to systemic biomarkers, high-sensitivity troponin I (hsTnI) and B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels, in low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis (LFLG-AS).

Background

Elevated levels of BNP and hsTnI have been related with poor prognosis in patients with LFLG-AS.

Methods

Prospective study with LFLG-AS patients that underwent hsTnI, BNP, coronary angiography, cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) with T1 mapping, echocardiogram and dobutamine stress echocardiogram. Patients were divided into 3 groups according to BNP and hsTnI levels: Group 1 (n = 17) when BNP and hsTnI levels were below median [BNP < 1.98 fold upper reference limit (URL) and hsTnI < 1.8 fold URL]; Group 2 (n = 14) when BNP or hsTnI were higher than median; and Group 3 (n = 18) when both hsTnI and BNP were higher than median.

Results

49 patients included in 3 groups. Clinical characteristics (including risk scores) were similar among groups. Group 3 patients had lower valvuloarterial impedance (P = 0.03) and lower left ventricular ejection fraction (P = 0.02) by echocardiogram. CMR identified a progressive increase of right and left ventricular chamber from Group 1 to Group 3, and worsening of left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) (40 [31-47] vs. 32 [29-41] vs. 26 [19-33]%; p < 0.01) and right ventricular EF (62 [53-69] vs. 51 [35-63] vs. 30 [24-46]%; p < 0.01). Besides, there was a marked increase in myocardial fibrosis assessed by extracellular volume fraction (ECV) (28.4 [24.8-30.7] vs. 28.2 [26.9-34.5] vs. 31.8 [28.9-35.5]%; p = 0.03) and indexed ECV (iECV) (28.7 [21.2-39.1] vs. 28.8 [25.4-39.9] vs. 44.2 [36.4-51.2] ml/m², respectively; p < 0.01) from Group 1 to Group 3.

Conclusions

Higher levels of BNP and hsTnI in LFLG-AS patients are associated with worse multi-modality evidence of cardiac remodeling and fibrosis.

Life expectancy after surgical aortic valve replacement for low-gradient aortic stenosis with preserved ejection fraction

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) can modify the natural history of severe aortic stenosis (SAS). However, compared with the general population, these patients have a loss of life expectancy. The life expectancy of patients who undergo SAVR due to low-gradient SAS with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is unknown.

METHODS

We included all patients between 50 and 65 years who underwent isolated SAVR in 27 Spanish centers during an 18-year period. We analyzed observed and expected survival at 18 years in patients with low-gradient SAS with preserved LVEF and all other types of SAS. We used propensity score matching to compare the life expectancy of patients with low-gradient SAS with preserved LVEF vs those with high-gradient SAS with preserved LVEF.

RESULTS

We analyzed 5084 patients, of whom 413 had low-gradient SAS with preserved LVEF. For these patients, observed survival at 10, 15 and 18 years was 86.6% (95%CI, 85.3-87.8), 75% (95%CI, 72.7-77.2), and 63.5% (95%CI, 58.8-67.8). Expected survival at 10, 15 and 18 years was 90.2%, 82.1%, and 75.7%. In the matched sample, survival of patients with low-gradient SAS with preserved LVEF was similar to that of patients with high-gradient with preserved LVEF, log-rank test, P=.95; HR=1 (95%CI, 0.7-1.4; P=.95).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a loss of life expectancy in patients with all types of SAS undergoing SAVR. This loss is higher in patients with left ventricular dysfunction and lower in patients with low-gradient or high-gradient aortic stenosis with preserved LVEF. The benefit of surgery is similar between these last 2 groups.

Comprehensive myocardial characterization using cardiac magnetic resonance associates with outcomes in low gradient severe aortic stenosis

AIMS

This study sought to compare cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) characteristics according to different flow/gradient patterns of aortic stenosis (AS) and to evaluate their prognostic value in patients with low-gradient AS.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This international prospective multicentric study included 147 patients with low-gradient moderate to severe AS who underwent comprehensive CMR evaluation of left ventricular global longitudinal strain (LVGLS), extracellular volume fraction (ECV), and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE). All patients were classified as followings: classical low-flow low-gradient (LFLG) [mean gradient (MG) < 40 mmHg and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 50%]; paradoxical LFLG [MG < 40 mmHg, LVEF ≥ 50%, and stroke volume index (SVi) < 35 ml/m2]; and normal-flow low-gradient (MG < 40 mmHg, LVEF ≥ 50%, and SVi ≥ 35 ml/m2). Patients with classical LFLG (n = 90) had more LV adverse remodelling including higher ECV, and higher LGE and volume, and worst LVGLS. Over a median follow-up of 2 years, 43 deaths and 48 composite outcomes of death or heart failure hospitalizations occurred. Risks of adverse events increased per tertile of LVGLS: hazard ratio (HR) = 1.50 [95% CI, 1.02-2.20]; P = 0.04 for mortality; HR = 1.45 [1.01-2.09]; P < 0.05 for composite outcome; per tertile of ECV, HR = 1.63 [1.07-2.49]; P = 0.02 for mortality; HR = 1.54 [1.02-2.33]; P = 0.04 for composite outcome. LGE presence also associated with higher mortality, HR = 2.27 [1.01-5.11]; P < 0.05 and composite outcome, HR = 3.00 [1.16-7.73]; P = 0.02. The risk of mortality and the composite outcome increased in proportion to the number of impaired components (i.e. LVGLS, ECV, and LGE) with multivariate adjustment.

CONCLUSIONS

In this international prospective multicentric study of low-gradient AS, comprehensive CMR assessment provides independent prognostic value that is cumulative and incremental to clinical and echocardiographic characteristics.

Quantification of Significant Aortic Stenosis by Echocardiography versus Four-Dimensional Cardiac Computed Tomography: A Multi-Modality Imaging Study

Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) grading of aortic stenosis (AS) is challenging when parameters are discrepant, and four-dimensional cardiac computed tomography (4D-CCT) is increasingly utilized for transcatheter intervention workup. We compared TTE and 4D-CCT measures contributing to AS quantification. AS patients (n = 80, age 86 ± 10 years, 71% men) referred for transcatheter replacement in 2014−2017 were retrospectively studied, 20 each with high-gradient AS (HG-AS), classical and paradoxical low-flow low-gradient AS (CLFLG-AS and PLFLG-AS), and normal-flow low-gradient AS (NFLG-AS). Correlation and Bland−Altman analyses were performed between TTE and 4D-CCT parameters. There were moderate-to-high TTE versus 4D-CCT correlations for left ventricular volumes, function, mass, and outflow tract dimensions (r = 0.51−0.88), though values were mostly significantly higher by 4D-CCT (p < 0.001). Compared with 4D-CCT planimetry of aortic valve area (AVA), TTE estimates had modest correlation (r = 0.37−0.43) but were significantly lower (by 0.15−0.32 cm2). The 4D-CCT estimate of LVSVi lead to significant reclassification of AS subtype defined by TTE. In conclusion, 4D-CCT quantified values were higher than TTE for the left ventricle and AVA, and the AS subtype was reclassified based on LVSVi by 4D-CCT, warranting further research to establish its clinical implications and optimal thresholds in severe AS management.

Early and mid-term outcome of patients with low-flow-low-gradient aortic stenosis treated with newer-generation transcatheter aortic valves

Patients with non-paradoxical low-flow-low-gradient (LFLG) aortic stenosis (AS) are at increased surgical risk, and thus, they may particularly benefit from transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, data on this issue are still limited and based on the results with older-generation transcatheter heart valves (THVs). The aim of this study was to investigate early and mid-term outcome of TAVR with newer-generation THVs in the setting of LFLG AS. Data for the present analysis were gathered from the OBSERVANT II dataset, a national Italian observational, prospective, multicenter cohort study that enrolled 2,989 consecutive AS patients who underwent TAVR at 30 Italian centers between December 2016 and September 2018, using newer-generation THVs. Overall, 420 patients with LVEF ≤50% and mean aortic gradient <40 mmHg were included in this analysis. The primary outcomes were 1-year all-cause mortality and a combined endpoint including all-cause mortality and hospital readmission due to congestive heart failure (CHF) at 1 year. A risk-adjusted analysis was performed to compare the outcome of LFLG AS patients treated with TAVR (n = 389) with those who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR, n = 401) from the OBSERVANT I study. Patients with LFLG AS undergoing TAVR were old (mean age, 80.8 ± 6.7 years) and with increased operative risk (mean EuroSCORE II, 11.5 ± 10.2%). VARC-3 device success was 83.3% with 7.6% of moderate/severe paravalvular leak. Thirty-day mortality was 3.1%. One-year all-cause mortality was 17.4%, and the composite endpoint was 34.8%. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR 1.78) and EuroSCORE II (HR 1.02) were independent predictors of 1-year mortality, while diabetes (HR 1.53) and class NYHA IV (HR 2.38) were independent predictors of 1-year mortality or CHF. Compared with LFLG AS treated with SAVR, TAVR patients had a higher rate of major vascular complications and permanent pacemaker, while SAVR patients underwent more frequently to blood transfusion, cardiogenic shock, AKI, and MI. However, 30-day and 1-year outcomes were similar between groups. Patients with non-paradoxical LFLG AS treated by TAVR were older and with higher surgical risk compared with SAVR patients. Notwithstanding, TAVR was safe and effective with a similar outcome to SAVR at both early and mid-term.

The role of TAVR in patients with heart failure: do we have the responses to all questions?

Severe aortic stenosis (AS) is the most prevalent valvular heart disease in developed countries. Heart failure (HF) is a frequent comorbidity of this condition and represents a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge. The spectrum of both conditions has become progressively wider in the last decade; HF has been divided in three groups according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and severe AS has been reclassified into four groups according to aortic valve (AV) gradient, AV flow measured by LV stroke index, and LVEF. Although all four AS types may be found in patients with signs and symptoms of HF, low-flow AS with low or normal gradient is the most common type in these patients. Several studies have documented that patients with low-flow severe AS have a higher mortality risk than patients with normal-flow and high-gradient AS not only during the natural progression of the disease, but also after either interventional or surgical AV replacement. Existing data support transcatheter AV replacement (TAVR) in patients with severe AS, irrespective of AV gradient, AV flow, and LVEF. Controversial issues, however, are still present on this topic, which has not been adequately addressed by large studies and trials. This clinical review summarizes the epidemiology of the different HF types in patients with severe AS, as well as the impact of HF and LVEF on clinical outcomes of AS patients either untreated or after AV replacement. In particular, we addressed the influence of AV gradient and AV flow on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in AS patients after TAVR.

Physical and physiological effects of dobutamine stress echocardiography in low-gradient aortic stenosis

Dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) is a useful tool for assessing low-gradient significant aortic stenosis (AS) and contractile reserve (CR), but its prognostic utility has become controversial in recent studies. We evaluated the impact of DSE on aortic valve physiological, structural, and left ventricular parameters in low-gradient AS. Consecutive patients undergoing DSE for low-gradient AS evaluation from September 2010 to July 2016 were retrospectively studied, and DSE findings were divided into four groups: with and without severe AS and/or CR. Relationships between left ventricular chamber quantification, CR, aortic valve Doppler during DSE, and calcium score [by computerized tomography (CT)] were analyzed. There were 258 DSE studies performed on 243 patients, mean age 77.6 ± 10.8 yr and 183 (70.1%) were males. With increasing dobutamine dose, apart from systolic blood pressure, left ventricular ejection fraction, flow, cardiac power output, and longitudinal strain magnitude, along with aortic valve area and mean aortic gradient were all significantly increased (P < 0.05). Flow and mean gradient increased in both the presence and absence of CR, whereas stroke volume and aortic valve area increased mainly in those with CR only. The aortic valve area increased in both patients with low and high calcium scores; however, the baseline area was lower in those with a higher calcium score. During DSE, aortic valve area increases with increase in aortic valve gradient. Higher calcium score is associated with lower baseline aortic valve area, but the aortic valve area still increases with dobutamine even in presence of a high calcium score.NEW & NOTEWORTHY We show that even in most severe aortic stenosis, there is some residual valve pliability. This suggests that a complete loss of pliability is not compatible with survival.