Comparison of Outcome of Higher Versus Lower Transvalvular Gradients in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis and Low (< 40%) Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction

Division of Cardiology, Washington Hospital Center, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
The American journal of cardiology (Impact Factor: 3.28). 01/2012; 109(7):1031-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2011.11.041
Source: PubMed


Left ventricular systolic dysfunction in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) is associated with poor outcome. This analysis was designed primarily to describe the clinical course of a large series of consecutive patients with severe AS and low ejection fraction (EF) (<40%) who, because of high surgical risk, were referred for transcatheter aortic valve implantation consideration. A cohort of 270 patients with severe AS and low EF (<40%) who were referred to participate in a clinical trial of transcatheter aortic valve implantation was studied. Clinical, hemodynamic, and periprocedural complications and follow-up mortality data were collected and compared between patients with low mean transvalvular gradients (≤40 mm Hg, n = 170 [63%]) and high transvalvular gradients (>40 mm Hg, n = 100 [37%]). Patients with low gradients were younger (mean age 79.8 ± 9.1 vs 83.8 ± 7.7 years, p <0.001) and had higher incidences of coronary artery disease and renal failure. Mean aortic valve area was larger (0.73 ± 0.23 vs 0.53 ± 0.18 cm(2), p <0.001), while mean EF (26.4 ± 6.9% vs 30.5% ± 6.6%, p <0.001), cardiac output (3.7 ± 1.1 vs 4.1 ± 1.3 L/min, p = 0.04), and cardiac index (1.9 ± 0.5 vs 2.1 ± 0.6 L/min/m(2), p = 0.04) were lower in patients with lower gradients compared to those with higher gradients, respectively. Mortality was higher in patients with low gradients (53.8%) at a mean follow-up of 151 days compared to those with high gradients (41%) at a mean follow-up of 256 days (p = 0.01). In conclusion, patients with severe AS and low EF with low transvalvular gradients are at higher risk for worse outcomes compared to patients with high transvalvular gradients. Surgery or transcatheter aortic valve implantation treatment and high baseline transvalvular gradient are associated with EF improvement.

17 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine success- and complication rates after balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) and the outcome of BAV as a standalone therapy versus BAV as a bridge to transcatheter/surgical aortic valve replacement (T/SAVR). BACKGROUND: The introduction of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has led to a revival in BAV as treatment for patients with severe aortic stenosis. METHODS: A cohort of 472 patients underwent 538 BAV procedures. The cohort was divided into two groups: BAV alone 387 (81.9%) and BAV as a bridge 85 (18.1%) to (n=65, TAVR; n=20, surgery). Clinical, hemodynamic, and follow-up mortality data were collected. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the two groups in mean age (81.7±8.3 vs. 83.2±10.9 years, p=0.18), Society of Thoracic Surgeons score (13.1±6.2 and 12.4±6.4, p=0.4), logistic EuroSCORE (45.4±22.3 vs. 46.9±21.8, p=0.43), and other co-morbidities. The mean increase in aortic valve area was 0.39±0.25 in the BAV alone group and 0.42±0.26 in the BAV as a bridge group, p=0.33. The decrease in mean gradient was 24.1±13.1 in the BAV alone group vs. 27.1±13.8 in the BAV as a bridge group, p=0.06. During a median follow up of 183 days [54-409], the mortality rate was 55.2% (n=214) in the BAV alone group vs. 22.3% (n=19) in the BAV as a bridge group during a median follow-up of 378 days [177-690], p <0.001. CONCLUSION: In high-risk patients with aortic stenosis and temporary contraindications to SAVR/TAVR, BAV may be used as a bridge to intervention with good mid-term outcomes. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
    Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 03/2012; 82(4). DOI:10.1002/ccd.24682 · 2.11 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This prospective study aimed to evaluate the prognostic impact of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and aortic mean gradient patterns on outcome after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). From 2008 to 2011, 202 consecutive patients with severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis (aortic valve area <1.0 cm(2)) were submitted to TAVI. Patients were divided into four groups according to LVEF (>50% vs. ≤50%) and aortic mean pressure gradient (>40 mmHg vs. ≤40 mmHg): group 1, preserved LVEF/high gradient (n = 86); group 2, preserved LVEF/low gradient (n = 27); group 3, reduced LVEF/high gradient (n = 45); and group 4, reduced LVEF/low gradient (n = 44). A CoreValve prosthesis (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) was inserted retrogradely. Echocardiography was performed before and 1 year after TAVI. The primary study endpoint (1-year all-cause mortality) was reached in 47 patients (23%). All-cause mortality was lowest in group 1 (14%), intermediate in group 2 (22%) and group 3 (27%), and highest in group 4 (39%) (P = 0.007). In survivors, aortic mean gradient decreased in all patients (baseline 48 ± 13 mmHg vs. 10 ± 4 mmHg at 1 year, P < 0.001). LVEF improved in group 3 and group 4 (baseline 42 ± 8% vs. 51 ± 11% at 1 year, P < 0.001). Severe aortic stenosis with low gradient and/or reduced LVEF is associated with worse outcome after TAVI compared with aortic stenosis with preserved LVEF/high gradient. The evaluation of these haemodynamic parameters may help to improve risk stratification in patients undergoing TAVI.
    European Journal of Heart Failure 07/2012; 14(10):1155-62. DOI:10.1093/eurjhf/hfs108 · 6.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Low-flow, low-gradient (LF-LG) aortic stenosis (AS) may occur with depressed or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and both situations are among the most challenging encountered in patients with valvular heart disease. In both cases, the decrease in gradient relative to AS severity is due to a reduction in transvalvular flow. The main challenge in patients with depressed LVEF is to distinguish between true severe versus pseudosevere stenosis and to accurately assess the severity of myocardial impairment. Paradoxical LF-LG severe AS despite a normal LVEF is a recently described entity that is characterized by pronounced LV concentric remodeling, small LV cavity size, and a restrictive physiology leading to impaired LV filling, altered myocardial function, and worse prognosis. Until recently, this entity was often misdiagnosed, thereby causing underestimation of AS severity and inappropriate delays for surgery. Hence, the main challenge in these patients is proper diagnosis, often requiring diagnostic tests other than Doppler echocardiography. The present paper proposes to review the diagnostic and therapeutic management specificities of LF-LG AS with and without depressed LV function.
    Journal of the American College of Cardiology 10/2012; 60(19). DOI:10.1016/j.jacc.2012.06.051 · 16.50 Impact Factor
Show more


17 Reads
Available from