Dataset Information

Predictors of calcification distribution in severe tricuspid aortic valve stenosis.

ABSTRACT: We investigated aortic valve calcification (AVC) distribution and predictors for leaflet calcification patterns in patients with severe tricuspid aortic valve stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Patients undergoing routine multi-sliced computed tomography (MSCT) for procedural planning were enrolled. MSCT data were transferred to a dedicated workstation for evaluation (3mensio Structural Heart™, Pie Medical Imaging BV, Maastricht, The Netherlands) and analyzed. Participants were separated into asymmetrical (AC) and symmetrical (SC) leaflet calcification and potential predictors for calcification distribution were identified with univariate and multivariate regression analysis. 567 Participants with severe tricuspid AS were divided into asymmetrical (AC, n = 443; 78.1%) and symmetrical (SC, n = 124; 21.9%) AVC. In AC, the non-coronary cusp was the most calcified cusp (n = 238; 57.7%). SC is more common in females (AC/SC: 49.2% vs. 67.7%; p < 0.0001). AVC was more severe in patients with AC, who also have larger aortic root dimensions. Multivariate analysis depicted, inter alia, left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) calcification < 25 Agatston units (OR 1.81 [1.09-3.00], p = 0.021), a mean pressure gradient < 36 mmHg (OR 1.77 [1.03-3.05], p = 0.039), and an annulo-apical angle > 67° (OR 1.68 [1.00-2.80], p = 0.049) as predictors for SC, although with only moderate predictive value. Data from this retrospective analysis indicate that SC occurs more frequently in females. The cumulative leaflet calcification burden is higher in patients with AC, who also present with larger aortic root dimensions. The predictive value for prominent calcification of different aortic valve cusps in AC patients was only low to moderate.Trial registration number: NCT01805739.

SUBMITTER: Piayda K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8390394 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) indications are expanding, leading to an increasing number of patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR. Pivotal randomized trials conducted to obtain US Food and Drug Administration approval excluded bicuspid anatomy.ObjectiveTo compare the outcomes of TAVR with a balloon-expandable valve for bicuspid vs tricuspid aortic stenosis.Design, setting, and participantsRegistry-based prospective cohort study of patients undergoing TAVR at 552 US centers. Participants were enrolled in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)/American College of Cardiology (ACC) Transcatheter Valve Therapies Registry from June 2015 to November 2018.ExposuresTAVR for bicuspid vs tricuspid aortic stenosis.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes were 30-day and 1-year mortality and stroke. Secondary outcomes included procedural complications, valve hemodynamics, and quality of life assessment.ResultsOf 81 822 consecutive patients with aortic stenosis (2726 bicuspid; 79 096 tricuspid), 2691 propensity-score matched pairs of bicuspid and tricuspid aortic stenosis were analyzed (median age, 74 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 66-81 years]; 39.1%, women; mean [SD] STS-predicted risk of mortality, 4.9% [4.0%] and 5.1% [4.2%], respectively). All-cause mortality was not significantly different between patients with bicuspid and tricuspid aortic stenosis at 30 days (2.6% vs 2.5%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.04, [95% CI, 0.74-1.47]) and 1 year (10.5% vs 12.0%; HR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.73-1.10]). The 30-day stroke rate was significantly higher for bicuspid vs tricuspid aortic stenosis (2.5% vs 1.6%; HR, 1.57 [95% CI, 1.06-2.33]). The risk of procedural complications requiring open heart surgery was significantly higher in the bicuspid vs tricuspid cohort (0.9% vs 0.4%, respectively; absolute risk difference [RD], 0.5% [95% CI, 0%-0.9%]). There were no significant differences in valve hemodynamics. There were no significant differences in moderate or severe paravalvular leak at 30 days (2.0% vs 2.4%; absolute RD, 0.3% [95% CI, -1.3% to 0.7%]) and 1 year (3.2% vs 2.5%; absolute RD, 0.7% [95% CI, -1.3% to 2.7%]). At 1 year there was no significant difference in improvement in quality of life between the groups (difference in improvement in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score, -2.4 [95% CI, -5.1 to 0.3]; P = .08).Conclusions and relevanceIn this preliminary, registry-based study of propensity-matched patients who had undergone transcatheter aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis, patients with bicuspid vs tricuspid aortic stenosis had no significant difference in 30-day or 1-year mortality but had increased 30-day risk for stroke. Because of the potential for selection bias and the absence of a control group treated surgically for bicuspid stenosis, randomized trials are needed to adequately assess the efficacy and safety of transcatheter aortic valve replacement for bicuspid aortic stenosis.

Project description:BackgroundImpaired left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction is a common finding in patients with aortic stenosis and serves as a predictor of morbidity and mortality after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. However, conflicting data on the most accurate measure for LV function exist. We wanted to examine the impact of LV ejection fraction, mean pressure gradient, and stroke volume index on the outcome of patients treated by transcatheter aortic valve replacement.Methods and resultsPatients treated by transcatheter aortic valve replacement were primarily separated into normal flow (NF; stroke volume index >35 mL/m2) and low flow (LF; stroke volume index ?35 mL/m2). Afterwards, patients were divided into 5 groups: "NF-high gradient," "NF-low gradient" (NF-LG), "LF-high gradient," "paradoxical LF-LG," and "classic LF-LG." The 3-year mortality was the primary end point. Of 1600 patients, 789 (49.3%) were diagnosed as having LF, which was characterized by a higher 30-day (P=0.041) and 3-year (P<0.001) mortality. LF was an independent predictor of all-cause (hazard ratio, 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.62; P=0.03) and cardiovascular (hazard ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.77; P=0.016) mortality. Neither mean pressure gradient nor LV ejection fraction was an independent predictor of mortality. Patients with paradoxical LF-LG (35.0%), classic LF-LG (35.1%) and LF-high gradient (38.1%) had higher all-cause mortality at 3 years compared with NF-high gradient (24.8%) and NF-LG (27.9%) (P=0.001). However, surviving patients showed a similar improvement in symptoms regardless of aortic stenosis entity.ConclusionsLF is a common finding within the aortic stenosis population and, in contrast to LV ejection fraction or mean pressure gradient, an independent predictor of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Despite increased long-term mortality, high procedural success and excellent functional improvement support transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with LF severe aortic stenosis.

Project description:BackgroundCirculatory efficiency reflects the ratio between total left ventricular work and the work required for maintaining cardiovascular circulation. The effect of severe aortic valve stenosis (AS) and aortic valve replacement (AVR) on left ventricular/circulatory mechanical power and efficiency is not yet fully understood. We aimed to quantify left ventricular (LV) efficiency in patients with severe AS before and after surgical AVR.MethodsCirculatory efficiency was computed from cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging derived volumetric data, echocardiographic and clinical data in patients with severe AS (n?=?41) before and 4 months after AVR and in age and sex-matched healthy subjects (n?=?10).ResultsIn patients with AS circulatory efficiency was significantly decreased compared to healthy subjects (9?±?3% vs 12?±?2%; p?=?0.004). There were significant negative correlations between circulatory efficiency and LV myocardial mass (r?=?-?0.591, p?<?0.001), myocardial fibrosis volume (r?=?-?0.427, p?=?0.015), end systolic volume (r?=?-?0.609, p?<?0.001) and NT-proBNP (r?=?-?0.444, p?=?0.009) and significant positive correlation between circulatory efficiency and LV ejection fraction (r?=?0.704, p?<?0.001). After AVR, circulatory efficiency increased significantly in the total cohort (9?±?3 vs 13?±?5%; p?<?0.001). However, in 10/41 (24%) patients, circulatory efficiency remained below 10% after AVR and, thus, did not restore to normal values. These patients also showed less reduction in myocardial fibrosis volume compared to patients with restored circulatory efficiency after AVR.ConclusionIn our cohort, circulatory efficiency is reduced in patients with severe AS. In 76% of cases, AVR leads to normalization of circulatory efficiency. However, in 24% of patients, circulatory efficiency remained below normal values even after successful AVR. In these patients also less regression of myocardial fibrosis volume was seen. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov NCT03172338, June 1, 2017, retrospectively registered.

Dataset Information

Predictors of calcification distribution in severe tricuspid aortic valve stenosis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets