107 Low-flow low-gradient aortic stenosis: aortic valve area estimated by continuity equation versus simplified method of projected aortic valve area

Abstract

Abstract Introduction The evaluation of real severity of "low-flow low-gradient" aortic stenosis (LFLG AS) is particularly challenging. TOPAS study demonstrated that projected aortic valve area at a normal transvalvular flow rate (AVAproj) derived from dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) is superior to the traditional Doppler indices to discriminate true severe-AS and pseudosevere-AS. Purpose To compare two echocardiographic methods to estimate severity of LFLG AS with DSE (aortic valve area (AVA) estimated by continuity equation (AVA-CE) and simplified method of AVAproj) in patients (pts) with low transvalvular flow rate (<250mL/seg). Methods Unicentric, retrospective study, that included pts with LFLG AS undergoing DSE with low dose dobutamine protocol, during Nov 2013-Dec 2018 period. Evaluation at rest and peak DSE of vital signs, mean transaortic gradient, aortic VTI, LVOT VTI and VTI ratio, valvulo-arterial impedance (ZVA), AVA-CE, simplified method of AVAproj and global longitudinal strain (GLS). Results A total of 27 DSE were performed in 23 different pts, mean age of 76 ± 8 years, 82% male. At rest 55% in sinus rhythm, mean heart rate (HR) was 76 ± 12 bpm, mean systolic arterial pressure (SAP) was 122 ± 22 mmHg, mean ZVA 4.3 ± 2 mmHg/ml/m2; mean diameter of LVOT was 21,7 ± 2,6cm, mean of mean aortic gradients 21 ± 7 mmHg, 67% of pts had a VTI ratio at rest compatible with severe AS and remaining compatible with moderate AS. Estimated mean AVA-CE was 0.86 ± 0.29 cm2 with 67% of pts classified as severe AS. Mean left ventricular ejection fraction at rest was 31 ± 9%, systolic volume index 28,7 ± 8 mL/m2 and GLS -5,9%. During low dose perfusion protocol of dobutamine 100% patients remained asymptomatic, mean HR was 110 ± 25 bpm, mean SAP was 123 ± 26 mmHg, mean ZVA 3.6 ± 1.7 mmHg/mL/m2, mean of mean aortic gradients 28 ± 9mmHg, 37% of pts presented VTI ratio compatible with severe AS and remaining compatible with moderate AS. Mean flow reserve was 16 ± 16% and mean GLS-7.2%. AVA-CE was 1,06 ± 0,35 cm2 with 56% of pts classified as severe AS and mean projected AVA was 1.01 ± 0.22cm2, without significant difference in AVA estimated by the two methods (p = 0.344). Projected AVA allowed re-classification of AS in 22% of pts (5 patients), with 31% of severe AS reclassified as moderate AS while AVA-CE allowed re-classification in 13% (3 patients), with 19% of severe AS reclassified as moderate AS. Considering medium follow up of 24 months, 6 patients were submitted aortic valve replacement surgery and another 6 patients to transcatheter aortic valve replacement. The simplified projected valve area calculation show no significant therapeutic impact in the selection of this patients. Conclusion The simplified projected valve area calculation is technically feasible and accessible. This study shows a good correlation in pts with low cardiac flow. If AVAproj method had been used 2 extra patients would have been reclassified during DSE.