Flow-Gradient Patterns can help in the selection of patients with aortic stenosis

Original title: Flow-Gradient Patterns in Severe Aortic Stenosis UIT Preserved Ejection Fraction. Clinical Characteristic and Predictos of Survival. Reference: Eleid, M, et al. Circulation 2013;128:1781-1789

Severe aortic stenosis is usually defined by echocardiography as a 40 mm mean transvalvular gradient Hg at >4 m/s; but there are low flow or paradoxical low flow cases with different evolution.

1704 AS patients were divided in 4 groups: low flow/high gradient (LF/HG) n= 50 (3%), low flow/low gradient (LF/LG) n= 53 (3%), normal flow/low gradient (NF/LG) n= 352 (21%) and normal flow/high gradient (NF/HG) n= 1249 (73%).

The less symptomatic was the NF/LG) group, characterized by a high prevalence of women, less, smaller LV cavity and restrictive filling pattern. The LF/LG group presented the most deteriorated LVEF, also the lowest LV mass index, the smallest LV diameter and the greatest incidence of auricular fibrillation.

62% of all patients received surgical AVR and 4% received TAVR. NF/LG patients mostly received medical management, with favorable survival of 59% at 2 years.

The LF/LG group had the worst prognosis, with 60% survival rate at 2 years. Survival rate was 85% for the NF/LG group, 82% for the NF/HG group and 78% for the LF/LG group (p<0.0001 was the difference in survival between groups).  Aortic valve replacement (AVR) was associated with a 69% mortality reduction in LF/LG and NF/HG groups.

Conclusion:

NF/LG severe AS with preserved EF exhibits favorable survival with medical management and impact of AVR on survival was neutral. LF/LG was associated with higher mortality and TAVR was associated with improved survival. 

Editorial Comment

This new way of classifying AS offers important information about prognosis. It would be preferable to start using it on a daily basis, especially with high risk patients that most frequently pose the greatest challenges as regards strategy.

Courtesy of Dr Carlos Fava.
Interventional Cardiologist.
Favaloro Foundation. Argentina.

Dr. Carlos Fava para SOLACI.ORG

More articles by this author

Is it really necessary to monitor all patients after TAVR?

Conduction disorders (CD) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are a frequent complication and may lead to the need for permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI)....

Is it really necessary to monitor all patients after TAVR?

Conduction disorders (CD) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are a frequent complication and may lead to the need for permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI)....

Transradial Aortic Valvuloplasty: Is Minimalism Worth It?

Balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) has historically been used either as a bridge strategy, an assessment tool, or even palliative treatment in severe aortic stenosis...

Atrial Fibrillation After Percutaneous Patent Foramen Ovale Closure: Cohort Study with Continuous Implantable Cardiac Monitoring

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a recognized complication following percutaneous closure of a patent foramen ovale (PFO), with reported incidences of up to 30% during...

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Related Articles

SOLACI Sessionsspot_img

Recent Articles

Coronary Perforations and Use of Covered Stents: Safe and Effective Long-Term Strategy?

Coronary perforations remain one of the most serious complications of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), especially in cases of Ellis ruptures type III. In these...

Is it really necessary to monitor all patients after TAVR?

Conduction disorders (CD) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are a frequent complication and may lead to the need for permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI)....

Is it really necessary to monitor all patients after TAVR?

Conduction disorders (CD) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are a frequent complication and may lead to the need for permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI)....