Paradoxical Low-flow Severe Aortic Stenosis Research Articles

Increased left ventricular remodelling index in paradoxical low-flow severe aortic stenosis with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction compared to normal-flow severe aortic stenosis.

Patients with paradoxical low-flow (LF) severe aortic stenosis (AS) despite preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) appear distinct from normal-flow (NF) patients, showing worse prognosis, more concentric hypertrophy and smaller left ventricular (LV) cavities. The left ventricular remodelling index (LVRI) has been demonstrated to reliably discriminate between physiologically adapted athlete's heart and pathological LV remodelling. We studied patients with index echocardiographic diagnosis of severe AS (aortic valve area <1 cm2) with preserved LVEF (>50%). The LVRI was determined by the ratio of the LV mass to the end-diastolic volume, as previously reported, and was compared between patients with LF and NF AS. Patients were prospectively followed up for at least 3 years, and clinical outcomes were examined in association with LVRI. Of the 450 patients studied, 112 (24.9%) had LF AS. While there were no significant differences in baseline clinical profile between LF and NF patients, LVRI was significantly higher in the LF group. Patients with high LVRI (>1.56 g/mL) had increased all-cause mortality (log-rank 9.18, P = 0.002) and were more likely to be admitted for cardiac failure (log-rank 7.61, P = 0.006) or undergo aortic valve replacement (log-rank 18.4, P < 0.001). After adjusting for the effect of age, hypertension, aortic valve area and mean pressure gradient on multivariate Cox regression, high LVRI remained independently associated with poor clinical outcomes (hazard ratio 1.64, 95% confidence interval 1.19-2.25, P = 0.002). Pathological LV remodelling (increased LVRI) was more common in patients with LF AS, and increased LVRI independently predicts worse clinical outcomes.

A NOVEL ECHOCARDIOGRAPHIC INDEX DEMONSTRATING REDUCED RELATIVE VALVE LOAD IN PATIENTS WITH PARADOXICAL LOW-FLOW COMPARED TO NORMAL-FLOW SEVERE AORTIC STENOSIS WITH PRESERVED LEFT VENTRICULAR EJECTION FRACTION

Paradoxical low-flow severe aortic stenosis (LF AS) despite preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) has been shown to be distinct from normal-flow (NF) AS, with poorer prognosis. Relative valve load (RVL) is an echocardiographic index which has been used to estimate the relative

P3366Increased left ventricular remodelling index in paradoxical low-flow severe aortic stenosis with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction compared to normal-flow

Abstract Background Left Ventricular Remodelling Index (LVRI) has been demonstrated to be able to reliably discriminate between an athlete's heart and pathological LV remodelling. Patients with paradoxical low-flow severe aortic stenosis (LF AS) despite preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) are a distinct group from normal-flow (NF) with poorer prognosis, more concentric hypertrophy and smaller LV cavities. Purpose We compared LVRI in LF compared to NF AS and examined clinical outcomes. Methods We studied consecutive patients with index echocardiographic diagnosis of severe AS (aortic valve area&lt;1cm2) with preserved LVEF (&gt;50%). LVRI was determined by the ratio of LV mass to the end-diastolic volume. Results Of the 450 patients studied, 149 (33.1%) were LF. There were no significant differences in baseline clinical profile of patients between LF and NF. LVRI was significantly higher in patients with LF compared to NF (2.27±0.68 vs 1.85±0.53 g/ml, p&lt;0.001). Patients with high LVRI (&gt;1.56 g/ml) had poorer clinical outcomes in terms of mortality (log-rank 9.18, p=0.002) and admissions for cardiac failure (log-rank 7.61, p=0.006). Low-flow (n=149) Normal-flow (n=301) Mean difference/Odds Ratio (95% CI) p-value Age (years) 73.5 (±12.8) 71.0 (±13.1) 2.5 (−0.1 to 5.1) 0.053 Body Mass Index (g/m2) 24.6 (±5.6) 24.7 (±5.3) −0.1 (−1.2 to 1.1) 0.877 Gender (male) 49 (32.9%) 125 (41.5%) 0.7 (0.5 to 1.1) 0.076 Hypertension 100 (67.1%) 195 (64.8%) 1.1 (0.7 to 1.7) 0.624 Diabetes 57 (38.3%) 100 (33.2%) 1.2 (0.8 to 1.9) 0.295 Hyperlipidaemia 79 (53.0%) 147 (49.0%) 1.2 (0.8 to 1.7) 0.425 End-diastolic volume (ml) 72.3 (±18.9) 112.6 (±26.3) −40.2 (−44.9 to −35.5) &lt;0.001 Left ventricular ejection fraction (%) 66.0 (±7.9) 67.4 (±7.1) −1.4 (−2.9 to 0.2) 0.077 Left ventricular mass index (g/m2) 99.7 (±33.0) 126.8 (±37.4) −27.2 (−34.8 to −19.6) &lt;0.001 Transaortic mean pressure gradient (mmHg) 32.2 (±17.4) 37.1 (±19.9) −4.9 (−8.6 to −1.1) 0.011 Aortic valve area (cm2) 0.78 (±0.16) 0.79 (±0.17) 0.1 (−0.2 to 0.1) 0.635 Stroke volume index (ml/m2) 28.6 (±5.6) 46.9 (±9.8) −18.3 (−20.0 to −16.6) &lt;0.001 Left ventricular remodelling index (LVRI, g/ml) 2.27 (±0.68) 1.85 (±0.53) 0.42 (0.31 to 0.54) &lt;0.001 LVRI in LF versus NF AS Conclusion Pathological LV remodelling as evidenced by increased LVRI was more common in LF compared to NF AS. Patients with increased LVRI also had worse clinical outcomes. Acknowledgement/Funding None

Predicting changes in flow category in patients with severe aortic stenosis and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction on medical therapy.

Controversy surrounds the prognosis and management of patients with paradoxical low-flow severe aortic stenosis (AS) with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). It was not certain if patients in a particular flow category remained in the same category as disease progressed. We investigated whether there were switches in categories and if so, their predictors. Consecutive subjects (n=203) with isolated severe AS and paired echocardiography (>180days apart) were studied. They were divided into 4 groups, based on their flow categories and if they progressed on subsequent echocardiography to switch or remain in the same flow category. Univariate analyses of clinical and echocardiographic parameters identified predictors of these changes in flow category. One hundred eighteen were normal flow (SVI≥35mL/m2 ), while 85 were low flow on index echocardiography. In the patients with normal flow, 33% switched to low flow. This was associated with higher valvuloarterial impedance (Zva, P<.001) and lower systemic arterial compliance (SAC, P<.001) compared to index echocardiography, and predicted by higher initial Zva (optimized cutoff >4.77mmHg/mL/m2 , AUC=0.81 [95% CI:0.75-0.87, P<.001]). In patients with low flow, 25% switched to normal flow, which was associated with lower Zva and higher SAC and the switch was predicted by a higher initial mean transaortic pressure gradient. A significant number of patients switched flow categories in severe AS with preserved LVEF on subsequent echocardiography. Changes in flow were reflected by respective changes in Zva and SAC. Identifying echocardiographic predictors of a switch in category may guide prognostication and management of such patients.

Prognostic Impact of Low-Flow Severe Aortic Stenosis in Small-Body Patients Undergoing TAVR: The OCEAN-TAVI Registry

ObjectivesThis study aimed to analyze the prognostic impact of low-flow (LF) severe aortic stenosis in small-body patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). BackgroundWestern literature demonstrates a poor prognosis with paradoxical LF and low-flow low-gradient (LF-LG) severe aortic stenosis (AS), as defined by stroke volume index (SVi) <35 ml/m2 and mean pressure gradient <40 mm Hg with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, this poor prognosis is contested in Japan owing to the smaller body size of Japanese patients relative to that of Western patients. Additionally, there are no reports of the prognostic implication of paradoxical LF or LF-LG severe AS in small-body patients undergoing TAVR. MethodsThis was a retrospective analysis of 723 consecutive Japanese patients (median age 85 years; 32.6% male; median body surface area 1.4 m2) who underwent TAVR for severe AS at 9 sites in Japan. The primary and secondary endpoints were cumulative all-cause and cardiovascular mortality after TAVR, respectively. ResultsNinety-seven (13.4%) patients had paradoxical LF severe AS whereas 38 (5.3%) had paradoxical LF-LG with severe AS. PLF was associated with a significant increase in all-cause (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.00; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.34 to 6.72; p < 0.001) and cardiovascular mortality (HR: 5.58; 95% CI: 1.19 to 26.2; p < 0.01), as compared with patients’ normal flow and preserved LVEF. PLF-LG was associated with a significant increase in all-cause mortality (HR: 3.76; 95% CI: 1.09 to 13.73; p < 0.01), as compared with normal flow high gradient with preserved LVEF. SVi was an independent predictor of cardiovascular mortality on multivariate analysis after adjustments for age, sex, clinically relevant variables, and other echocardiographic parameters (HR: 1.96; 95% CI: 1.19 to 3.23; p < 0.01). ConclusionsAmong Japanese small-body patients with severe AS, both paradoxical LF and LF-LG severe AS were associated with poor outcomes following TAVR. SVi was an independent predictor of cardiovascular mortality after TAVR. (Optimised Transcatheter Valvular Intervention registry [OCEAN-TAVI]; UMIN000020423)

Paradoxical low-flow aortic stenosis is defined by increased ventricular hydraulic load and reduced longitudinal strain.

Patients with paradoxical low-flow severe aortic stenosis (PLF-AS) reportedly have higher left ventricular hydraulic load and more systolic strain dysfunction than patients with normal-flow aortic stenosis. This study investigates the relationship of systolic loading and strain to PLF-AS to further define its pathophysiology. One hundred and twenty patients (age 79 ± 12 years, 37% men) with an indexed aortic valve area (AVAi) of 0.6 cm/m or less and an ejection fraction of 50% or higher were divided into two groups based on indexed stroke volume (SVi): PLF-AS, SVi ≤ 35 ml/m, N = 46; normal-flow aortic stenosis, SVi > 35 ml/m, N = 74). Valvular and arterial load were assessed using multiple measurements, and strain was assessed using speckle-tracking echocardiography. Patients with PLF-AS were found to have more valvular load (lower AVAi, P = 0.028; lower energy loss coefficient, P = 0.001), more arterial load [decreased arterial compliance and increased systemic vascular resistance (SVR), both P < 0.001] and more total hydraulic load [increased valvuloarterial impedance (Zva), P < 0.001]. Transvalvular gradients and arterial pressures were similar. Longitudinal strain was lower in PLF-AS (P < 0.001), but circumferential and rotation strains were similar. On adjusted regression, AVAi, SVR and longitudinal strain were associated with PLF-AS [odds ratio (OR) = 1.34, P = 0.043; OR = 1.31, P = 0.004; OR = 1.34, P = 0.011, respectively]. When SVR and AVAi were replaced with Zva, longitudinal strain and Zva (OR = 1.38, P = 0.015; OR = 1.33, P < 0.001 for both, respectively) were associated with PLF-AS. Increased hydraulic load, from more severe valvular stenosis and increased vascular resistance, and longitudinal strain impairment are associated with PLF-AS and their interplay is likely fundamental to its pathophysiology.

PARADOXICAL LOW-FLOW SEVERE AORTIC STENOSIS IN THE SETTING OF APICAL VARIANT HYPERTROPHIC CARDIOMYOPATHY

Paradoxical low-flow severe aortic stenosis (AS) poses a unique diagnostic challenge due to discordant echocardiographic findings. Apical variant hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is a relatively rare condition with symptoms that may mimic those of severe AS. An 86-year-old Caucasian man presented

Prevalence and long-term outcome of aortic prosthesis-patient mismatch in patients with paradoxical low-flow severe aortic stenosis.

Patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and paradoxical low flow (PLF) have worse outcome compared with those with normal flow. Furthermore, prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after aortic valve replacement is a predictor of reduced survival. However, the prevalence and prognostic impact of PPM in patients with PLF-AS are unknown. We aimed to analyze the prevalence and long-term survival of PPM in patients with PLF-AS. Between 2000 and 2010, 677 patients with severe AS, preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, and aortic valve replacement were included (74±8 years; 42% women; aortic valve area, 0.69±0.16 cm(2)). A PLF (indexed stroke volume ≤35 mL/m(2)) was found in 26%, and after aortic valve replacement, 54% of patients had PPM, defined as an indexed effective orifice area ≤0.85 cm(2)/m(2). The combined presence of PLF and PPM was found in 15%. Compared with patients with noPLF/noPPM, those with PLF/PPM were significantly older, with more comorbidities. They also received smaller and biological bioprosthesis more often (all P<0.01). Although early mortality was not significantly different between groups, the 10-year survival rate was significantly reduced in case of PLF/PPM compared with noPLF/noPPM (38±9% versus 70±5%; P=0.002), even after multivariable adjustment (hazard ratio, 2.58; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-4.45; P=0.0007). In this large catheterization-based study, the coexistence of PLF-AS before surgery and PPM after surgery is associated with the poorest outcome.

Prevalence and impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch in patients with paradoxical low-flow severe aortic stenosis

Purpose: Patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and paradoxical low flow (PLF) (indexed stroke volume 50%, have worse outcome compared to those with AS but normal flow. Moreover, Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch (PPM) (indexed prosthetic valve effective orifice area< 0.85cm2/m2) after aortic valve replacement (AVR) is a predictor of higher mortality. However, the impact of PPM in patients with PLFAS on long-term survival is unknown. Our aim was to analyze the prevalence and the impact on long-term survival of PPM in patients with PLFAS. Methods: 667 consecutive patients (age 74±8 years, 42% female, AVA 0.69±0.16 cm2) with preserved LVEF who underwent AVR for severe AS at our institution between 2000 and 2010 were included in this study. Patients were divided into 4 groups according to the presence/absence of PLF at cardiac catheterization and presence/absence of PPM following AVR and we compared short and long-term survival between these groups. Results: Among the 667 patients, 26% had PLFAS and PPM occurred in 54% of patients after AVR. Compared to patients with no PLF & no PPM (36% of the total cohort), those with PLF & PPM (15%) were significantly older, with more comorbidities. The 30-day mortality did not differ between the PLF- PPM and no-PLF-no PPM group. The 10-yr survival rate was significantly reduced in the PLF-PPM (37±9%) group compared to no PLF-no PPM (70±5%; p=0.003). In multivariate analysis adjusting for all predictors of survival, concomitant presence of PLF & PPM was an independent predictor of survival (HR= 2.68 95% CI: 1.5-4.4; p=0.0003) ![Figure][1] 10-year survival according to PPM/PLF Conclusion: In this catheterization-based study, patients with PLF and PPM have worse outcome when compared to those without these 2 conditions. [1]: pending:yes