Dataset Information

Size-adjusted aortic valve area: refining the definition of severe aortic stenosis.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

Severe 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 results

In 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)].

Conclusion

In 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.

SUBMITTER: Vulesevic B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8451205 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.