Outcome of Patients with Low-Flow/Low-Gradient Severe Aortic Stenosis Who Underwent Aortic Valve Replacement

Authors

  • Xing li Fan Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China
  • Jiajun Zhang Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China
  • Chong Wang Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Xiongke Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
  • Hongmei Chong EA-Sailing (Beijing) Culture Exchange Co, Ltd, Beijing, China
  • Guanxin Zhang Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China
  • Qing Xue Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China
  • Yangfeng Tang Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China
  • Lin Han Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1532/hsf.1709

Abstract

Background: It is well-documented that stroke volume and gradient are indexed to classify patients with aortic stenosis into several phenotypes. The purpose of the present study was to estimate the impact of stroke volume and gradient on the clinical outcome of patients with AS who have undergone aortic valve replacement. 

Methods: A total of 154 consecutive patients were studied. They all had severe aortic stenosis (aortic valve area [AVA]
≤ 1 cm², left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] ≥ 50%) and underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) from January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2010. Clinical and echocardiography data was collected. According to stroke volume index (SVi), low flow (LF, SVi < 35 mL/m²) and normal flow (NF, SVi ≥ 35 mL/m²) were defined, and according to transvalvular pressure gradient, low gradient (LG, gradient < 40 mmHg) and high gradient (HG, gradient ≥ 40 mmHg) were also defined. Based on the above classification, patients were separated into four groups: NF/HG (59 patients), NF/LG (30 patients), LF/HG (40 patients) and LF/LG (25 patients). To estimate the discrepancy between patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) and normal 3-leaflets aortic valve, 154 cases were divided into 2 groups: BAV group and 3-leaflets group. In-hospital mortality and overall survival were followed up. The risk factors of in-hospital mortality and overall survival were estimated by logistic regression analysis and Cox regression analysis. 

Results: The mean follow-up time was 59 ± 32 months of 154 patients among whom the in-hospital mortality of NF/HG was 1.7% compared with NF/LG (6.7%), LF/HG (12.5%) and LF/LG (10.5%). The overall survival rates among the four groups were NF/HG (72%), NF/LG (92%), LF/HG (55%) and LF/LG (84%). The 5-year survival rate was lower in the BAV group than in the 3-leaflets group (78% and 93%; P < .05). The independent value for the in-hospital mortality included atrial fibrillation, concomitant coronary artery bypass graft, cardiac index, and bicuspid aortic valve. The independent factors for the overall survival included valvulo-arterial impedance, time of cardiopulmonary bypass, atrial fibrillation, bicuspid aortic valve, and concomitant coronary artery bypass graft. 

Conclusion: The in-hospital outcome of LF/LG is worse than NF/HG and NF/LG, but similar to LF/HG. For the overall outcome, LF/LG is better than NF/HG and LF/HG, but worse than NF/LG. Patients with BAV exhibit worse survival compared to 3-leaflets aortic valve.

References

Adda J, Mielot C, Giorgi R, et al. 2012. Low-flow, low-gradient severe aortic stenosis despite normal ejection fraction is associated with severe left ventricular dysfunction as assessed by speckle-tracking echocardiography: a multicenter study. Circulation Cardiovasc Imag 5:27-35.

Clavel MA, Dumesnil JG, Capoulade R, Mathieu P, Senechal M, Pibarot P. 2012. Outcome of patients with aortic stenosis, small valve area, and low-flow, low-gradient despite preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. J Am Coll Cardiol 60:1259-67.

Clavel MA, Berthelot-Richer M, Le Ven F, et al. 2015. Impact of classic and paradoxical low flow on survival after aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 65:645-53.

Dumesnil JG, Pibarot P, Carabello B. 2010. Paradoxical low flow and/or low gradient severe aortic stenosis despite preserved left ventricular ejection fraction: implications for diagnosis and treatment. Eur Heart J 31:281-9.

Eleid MF, Sorajja P, Michelena HI, Malouf JF, Scott CG, Pellikka PA. 2013. Flow-gradient patterns in severe aortic stenosis with preserved ejection fraction: clinical characteristics and predictors of survival. Circulation 128:1781-9.

Hachicha Z, Dumesnil JG, Bogaty P, Pibarot P. 2007. Paradoxical low-flow, low-gradient severe aortic stenosis despite preserved ejection fraction is associated with higher afterload and reduced survival. Circulation 115:2856-64.

Hachicha Z, Dumesnil JG, Pibarot P. 2009. Usefulness of the valvuloarterial impedance to predict adverse outcome in asymptomatic aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 54:1003-11.

Jander N, Minners J, Holme I, et al. 2011. Outcome of patients with low-gradient “severe” aortic stenosis and preserved ejection fraction. Circulation 123:887-95.

Lancellotti P, Magne J, Donal E, et al. 2012. Clinical outcome in asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis: insights from the new proposed aortic stenosis grading classification. J Am Coll Cardiol 59:235-43.

Maes F, Boulif J, Pierard S, et al. 2014. Natural history of paradoxical low-gradient severe aortic stenosis. Circulation Cardiovasc imag 7:714-22.

Mathieu P, Bosse Y, Huggins GS, et al. 2015. The pathology and pathobiology of bicuspid aortic valve: State of the art and novel research perspectives. J Path Clin Research 1:195-206.

Michelena HI, Desjardins VA, Avierinos JF, et al. 2008. Natural history of asymptomatic patients with normally functioning or minimally dysfunctional bicuspid aortic valve in the community. Circulation 117:2776-84.

Minners J, Allgeier M, Gohlke-Baerwolf C, Kienzle RP, Neumann FJ, Jander N. 2010. Inconsistent grading of aortic valve stenosis by current guidelines: haemodynamic studies in patients with apparently normal left ventricular function. Heart 96:1463-8.

Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, et al. 2014. 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 148:e1-e132.

Voisine P, Mathieu P, Doyle D, et al. 2006. Influence of time elapsed between myocardial infarction and coronary artery bypass grafting surgery on operative mortality. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 29:319-23

Published

2017-07-20

How to Cite

Fan, X. li, Zhang, J., Wang, C., Chong, H., Zhang, G., Xue, Q., Tang, Y., & Han, L. (2017). Outcome of Patients with Low-Flow/Low-Gradient Severe Aortic Stenosis Who Underwent Aortic Valve Replacement. The Heart Surgery Forum, 20(4), E124-E128. https://doi.org/10.1532/hsf.1709

Issue

Section

Articles