Dataset Information

Transvalvular Flow Rate Determines Prognostic Value of Aortic Valve Area in Aortic Stenosis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Aortic valve area (AVA) ≤1.0 cm² is a defining characteristic of severe aortic stenosis (AS). AVA can be underestimated at low transvalvular flow rate. Yet, the impact of flow rate on prognostic value of AVA ≤1.0 cm² is unknown and is not incorporated into AS assessment.

Objectives

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of flow rate on prognostic value of AVA in AS.

Methods

In total, 1,131 patients with moderate or severe AS and complete clinical follow-up were included as part of a longitudinal database. The effect of flow rate (ratio of stroke volume to ejection time) on prognostic value of AVA ≤1.0 cm² for time to death was evaluated, adjusting for confounders. Sensitivity analysis was performed to identify the optimal cutoff for prognostic threshold of AVA. The findings were validated in a separate external longitudinal cohort of 939 patients.

Results

Flow rate had a significant effect on prognostic value of AVA. AVA ≤1.0 cm² was not prognostic for mortality (p = 0.15) if AVA was measured at flow rates below median (≤242 ml/s). In contrast, AVA ≤1.0 cm² was highly prognostic for mortality (p = 0.003) if AVA was measured at flow rates above median (>242 ml/s). Findings were irrespective of multivariable adjustment for age, sex, and surgical/transcatheter aortic valve replacement (as time-dependent covariates); comorbidities; medications; and echocardiographic features. AVA ≤1.0 cm² was also not an independent predictor of mortality below median flow rate in the validation cohort. The optimal flow rate cutoff for prognostic threshold was 210 ml/s.

Conclusions

Transvalvular flow rate determines prognostic value of AVA in AS. AVA measured at low flow rate is not a good prognostic marker and therefore not a good diagnostic marker for truly severe AS. Flow rate assessment should be incorporated into clinical diagnosis, classification, and prognosis of AS.

SUBMITTER: Namasivayam M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8087111 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsSevere aortic valve stenosis (AS) is defined by an aortic valve area (AVA) <1 cm2 or an AVA indexed to body surface area (BSA) <0.6 cm/m2, despite little evidence supporting the latter approach and important intrinsic limitations of BSA indexation. We hypothesized that AVA indexed to height (H) might be more applicable to a wide range of populations and body morphologies and might provide a better predictive accuracy.Methods and resultsIn 1298 patients with degenerative AS and preserved ejection fraction from three different countries and continents (derivation cohort), we aimed to establish an AVA/H threshold that would be equivalent to 1.0 cm2 for defining severe AS. In a distinct prospective validation cohort of 395 patients, we compared the predictive accuracy of AVA/BSA and AVA/H. Correlations between AVA and AVA/BSA or AVA/H were excellent (all R2 > 0.79) but greater with AVA/H. Regressions lines were markedly different in obese and non-obese patients with AVA/BSA (P < 0.0001) but almost identical with AVA/H (P = 0.16). AVA/BSA values that corresponded to an AVA of 1.0 cm2 were markedly different in obese and non-obese patients (0.48 and 0.59 cm2/m2) but not with AVA/H (0.61 cm2/m for both). Agreement for the diagnosis of severe AS (AVA < 1 cm2) was significantly higher with AVA/H than with AVA/BSA (P < 0.05). Similar results were observed across the three countries. An AVA/H cut-off value of 0.6 cm2/m [HR = 8.2(5.6-12.1)] provided the best predictive value for the occurrence of AS-related events [absolute AVA of 1 cm2: HR = 7.3(5.0-10.7); AVA/BSA of 0.6 cm2/m2 HR = 6.7(4.4-10.0)].ConclusionIn a large multinational/multiracial cohort, AVA/H was better correlated with AVA than AVA/BSA and a cut-off value of 0.6 cm2/m provided a better diagnostic and prognostic value than 0.6 cm2/m2. Our results suggest that severe AS should be defined as an AVA < 1 cm2 or an AVA/H < 0.6 cm2/m rather than a BSA-indexed value of 0.6 cm2/m2.

Project description:BackgroundFast progression of the transaortic mean gradient (P mean) is relevant for clinical decision making of valve replacement in patients with moderate and severe aortic stenosis (AS) patients. However, there is currently little knowledge regarding the determinants affecting progression of transvalvular gradient in AS patients.MethodsThis monocentric retrospective study included consecutive patients presenting with at least two transthoracic echocardiography examinations covering a time interval of one year or more between April 2006 and February 2016 and diagnosed as moderate or severe aortic stenosis at the final echocardiographic examination. Laboratory parameters, medication, and prevalence of eight known cardiac comorbidities and risk factors (hypertension, diabetes, coronary heart disease, peripheral artery occlusive disease, cerebrovascular disease, renal dysfunction, body mass index ≥30 Kg/m2, and history of smoking) were analyzed. Patients were divided into slow (P mean < 5 mmHg/year) or fast (P mean ≥ 5 mmHg/year) progression groups.ResultsA total of 402 patients (mean age 78 ± 9.4 years, 58% males) were included in the study. Mean follow-up duration was 3.4 ± 1.9 years. The average number of cardiac comorbidities and risk factors was 3.1 ± 1.6. Average number of cardiac comorbidities and risk factors was higher in patients in slow progression group than in fast progression group (3.3 ± 1.5 vs 2.9 ± 1.7; P=0.036). Patients in slow progression group had more often coronary heart disease (49.2% vs 33.6%; P=0.003) compared to patients in fast progression group. LDL-cholesterol values were lower in the slow progression group (100 ± 32.6 mg/dl vs 110.8 ± 36.6 mg/dl; P=0.005).ConclusionThese findings suggest that disease progression of aortic valve stenosis is faster in patients with fewer cardiac comorbidities and risk factors, especially if they do not have coronary heart disease. Further prospective studies are warranted to investigate the outcome of patients with slow versus fast progression of transvalvular gradient with regards to comorbidities and risk factors.