Interv Akut Kardiol. 2019;18(1):18-22 | DOI: 10.36290/kar.2018.017

Challenging situations in evaluating aortic stenosis

Hana Línková, Róbert Petr, Eva Pašková
III. interní kardiologická klinika FNKV a 3. lékařská fakulta UK, Praha

Aortic stenosis is the most common primary heart valve disease in adults and an important cause of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Up to 40% of patients with aortic stenosis have discordant Doppler-echocardiographic findings, the most common of which is the presence of a small aortic valve area (≤ 1.0 cm2) suggesting severe aortic stenosis, but a low gradient (< 40 mmHg) suggesting nonsevere aortic stenosis. In clinical practice, three subpopulations of patients with severe aortic stenosis and low gradient are distinguished: a/ “classical” type with a low gradient, low flow and low left ventricular ejection fraction: b/ paradoxical type with low gradient, low flow and preserved ventricular ejection fraction and c/ patients with a low gradient, normal flow, and normal ejection fraction. Echocardiography is the key tool for the diagnosis and evaluation of aortic stenosis. However, confirmation of the presence of aortic stenosis is particularly challenging in these patients and requires a multimodality imaging, such as low dose dobutamine stress test and aortic valve calcium scoring by multidetector computed tomography. Intervention of severe aortic stenosis should be considered despite a very high operative risk in these subgroups. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation may be superior to surgical aortic valve replacement especially in patients with low-flow, low gradient aortic stenosis.

Keywords: aortic stenosis, low gradient, low flow, echocardiography, multidetector computed tomography, quantification,surgical aortic valve replacement, transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Received: June 2, 2018; Accepted: August 25, 2018; Published: March 8, 2019  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Línková H, Petr R, Pašková E. Challenging situations in evaluating aortic stenosis. Interv Akut Kardiol. 2019;18(1):18-22. doi: 10.36290/kar.2018.017.
Download citation

References

  1. Iung B, Baron G, Butchart EG, et al. A prospective survey of patients with valvular heart disease in Europe: The Euro Heart Survey on Valvular Heart Disease, European Heart Journal 2003; 24: 1231-1243. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  2. Baumgartner H, Falk V, Bax J, et al. 2017 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. European Heart Journal, 2017; 38(36): 2739-2791. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  3. Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, et al. And American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, 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, Journal of American College of Cardiology 2014; 63: e57-e185. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  4. Dumesnil JG, Pibarot P, Carabello B. Paradoxical low flow and/or low gradient severe aortic stenosis despite preserved left ventricular ejection fraction: implications for diagnosis and treatment, European Heart Journal 2010; 31: 281-289. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  5. Hachicha Z, Dumesnil JG, Bogaty P, Pibarot P. Paradoxical low flow, low gradient severe aortic stenosis despite preserved ejection fraction is associated with higher afterload and reduced survival. Circulation 2007; 115: 2856-2864. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  6. Clavel MA, Fuchs C, Burwash IG, et al. Predictors of outcomes in low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis: results of the multicenter TOPAS Study. Circulation 2008; 118: S234-242. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  7. Lancellotti P, Magne J, Donal E, et al. Clinical outcome in asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis: insights from the new proposed aortic stenosis grading classification. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012; 59: 235-243. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  8. Dulgheru R, Pibarot P, Sengupta PP, et al. Multimodality imaging strategies for the assessment of aortic stenosis: viewpoint of the Heart Valve Clinic International database (HAVEC) group. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2016; 9: e004352. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  9. Samad Z, Vora AN, Dunning A, et al. Aortic valve surgery and survival in patients with moderate or severe aortic stenosis and left ventricular dysfunction. Eur Heart J 2016; 37: 2276-2286. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  10. Tribouilloy C, Bohbot Y, Maréchaux S, et al. Outcome implication of aortic valve area normalized to body size in asymptomatic aortic stenosis. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2016; 9: e 005121. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  11. Briand M, Dumesnil JG, Kadem L, et al. Reduced systemic arterial compliance impacts significantly on left ventricular afterload and function in aortic stenosis: implications for diagnosis and treatment. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005; 46: 291-298. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  12. Rieck AE, Cramariuc D, Boman K, et al. Hypertension in aortic stenosis: implications for left ventricular structure and cardiovascular events. Hypertension 2012; 60: 90-97. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  13. Hachicha Z, Dumesnil JG, Pibarot P. Usefulness of the valvuloarterial impedance to predict adverse outcome in asymptomatic aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009; 54: 1003-1011. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  14. Baumgartner H, Hung J, Bermejo J, et al. Recommendations on the echocardiographic assessment of aortic valve stenosis: a focused update from the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging and the American Society of Echocardiography European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging, 2017; 18(3): 254-275. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  15. Thaden JJ, Nkomo VT, Lee KJ, Oh JK. Doppler imaging in aortic stenosis: the importance of the nonapical imaging windows to determine severity in a contemporary cohort. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2015; 28: 780-785. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  16. Kamperidis V, van Rosendael PJ, Katsanos S, et al. Low gradient severe aortic stenosis with preserved ejection fraction: reclassification of severity by fusion of Doppler and computed tomographic data. Eur Heart J 2015; 36: 2087-2096. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  17. Clavel MA, Malouf J, Messika-Zeitoun D, et al. Aortic valve area calculation in aortic stenosis by CT and Doppler echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol Img 2015; 8: 248-257. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  18. Monin JL, Monchi M, Gest V, et al. Aortic stenosis with severe left ventricular dysfunction and low transvalvular pressure gradients: risk stratification by low-dose dobutamine echocardiography.J Am Coll Cardiol 2001; 37: 2101-2107. Go to original source...
  19. Nishimura RA, Grantham JA, Connolly HM, et al. Low-output, low-gradient aortic stenosis in patients with depressed left ventricular systolic function: the clinical utility of the dobutamine challenge in the catheterization laboratory. Circulation 2002; 106 : 809-813. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  20. Monin JL, Quéré J-P, Monchi M, et al. Low-gradient aortic stenosis operative risk stratification and predictors for long-term outcome: a multicenter study using dobutamine stress hemodynamics. Circulation2003; 108: 319-324. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  21. Cueff, Serfaty JM, Cimadevilla C, et al. Measurement of aortic valve calcification using multislice computed tomography: correlation with haemodynamic severity of aortic stenosis and clinical implication for patients with low ejection fraction, Heart 2011; 97: 721-726. Go to original source...
  22. Aggarwal SR, Clavel MA, Messika-Zeitoun D, et al. Sex differences in aortic valve calcification measured by multidetector computed tomography in aortic stenosis. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2013; 6: 40-47. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  23. Capoulade R, Le Ven F, Clavel MA, et al. Echocardiographic predictors of outcomes in adults with aortic stenosis. Heart 2016; 102: 934-942. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  24. O'Sullivan CJ, Stortecky S, Heg D, et al. Clinical outcomes of patients with low-flow, low-gradient, severe aortic stenosis and either preserved or reduced ejection fraction undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Eur Heart J 2013; 34: 3437-3450. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  25. Clavel MA, Berthelot-Richer M, Le Ven F, et al. Impact of classic and paradoxical low flow on survival after aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015; 65: 645-53. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  26. Quere JP, Monin JL, Levy F, et al. Influence of preoperative left ventricular contractile reserve on postoperative ejection fraction in low-gradient aortic stenosis. Circulation 2006; 113: 1738-1744. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  27. Dayan V, Vignolo G, Magne J, et al. Outcome and impact of aortic valve replacement in patients with preserved LV ejection fraction and low gradient aortic stenosis: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015: 66 Go to original source...
  28. Maes F, Boulif J, Pierard S, et al. Natural history of paradoxical low gradient "severe" aortic stenosis. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2014; 7: 714-722. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  29. Clavel MA, Côté N, Mathieu P, et al. Paradoxical low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis despite preserved left ventricular ejection fraction: new insights from weights of operatively excised aortic valves. Eur Heart J 2014; 35: 2655-2662. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  30. Connolly HM, Oh JK, Orszulak TA, et al. Aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis with severe left ventricular dysfunction. Prognostic indicators, Circulation 1997; 95: 2395-2400. Go to original source...
  31. Connolly HM, Oh JK, Schaff HV, et al. Severe aortic stenosis with low transvalvular gradient and severe left ventricular dysfunction: result of aortic valve replacement in 52 patients, Circulation 2000; 101: 1940-1946. Go to original source...
  32. Clavel MA, Burwash IG, Mundigler G, et al. Validation of conventional and simplified methods to calculate projected valve area at normal flow rate in patients with low flow, low gradient aortic stenosis: the multicenter TOP (True or Pseudo Severe Aortic Stenosis) study, Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography 2010; 223: 380-386. Go to original source...
  33. Clavel MA, Burwash IG, Pibarot P. Cardiac Imaging for Assessing Low-Gradient Severe Aortic Stenosis, JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2017; 10(2): 185-202. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  34. Clavel M-A, Ennezat PV, Mare'chaux S, et al. Stress echocardiography to assess stenosis severity and predict outcome in patients with paradoxical low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis and preserved LVEF. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2013; 6: 175-183. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  35. Mohty D, Boulogne C,Magne J, et al. Prevalence and long-term outcome of aortic prosthesis-patient mismatch in patients with paradoxical low-flow severe aortic stenosis. Circulation 2014; 130: S2-31. Go to original source...
  36. Pibarot P, Weissman NJ, Stewart WJ, et al. Incidence and sequelae of prosthesis-patient mismatch in transcatheter versus surgical valve replacement in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis - a PARTNER trial cohort A analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014; 64: 1323-1334. Go to original source...
  37. Kang DH, Jang JY, Park SJ, et al. Watchful observation versus early aortic valve replacement for symptomatic patients with normal flow, low-gradient severe aortic stenosis, Heart 2015; 101: 1375-1381. Go to original source...




Interventional Cardiology

Madam, Sir,
please be aware that the website on which you intend to enter, not the general public because it contains technical information about medicines, including advertisements relating to medicinal products. This information and communication professionals are solely under §2 of the Act n.40/1995 Coll. Is active persons authorized to prescribe or supply (hereinafter expert).
Take note that if you are not an expert, you run the risk of danger to their health or the health of other persons, if you the obtained information improperly understood or interpreted, and especially advertising which may be part of this site, or whether you used it for self-diagnosis or medical treatment, whether in relation to each other in person or in relation to others.

I declare:

  1. that I have met the above instruction
  2. I'm an expert within the meaning of the Act n.40/1995 Coll. the regulation of advertising, as amended, and I am aware of the risks that would be a person other than the expert input to these sites exhibited


No

Yes

If your statement is not true, please be aware
that brings the risk of danger to their health or the health of others.