D J Hildick-Smith1, L M Shapiro. 1. Cardiac Unit, Papworth Hospital, Cambridge, United Kingdom. david.hildick-smith@papworth-tr.anglox.nhs.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to assess coronary flow reserve (CFR) before and after aortic valve replacement (AVR). BACKGROUND: Coronary flow reserve is impaired under conditions of left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy. It is not known whether CFR improves with regression of LV hypertrophy in humans. METHODS: We investigated 35 patients with pure aortic stenosis, LV hypertrophy and normal coronary arteriograms. Patients underwent adenosine transthoracic echocardiography on two occasions--immediately before AVR and six months postoperatively. Left ventricular mass, distal left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) diameter, flow and CFR were assessed on each occasion. RESULTS: Distal LAD diameter was successfully imaged in 30 patients (86%), and blood flow was successfully imaged in 27 (77%). Paired data were subsequently available in 24 patients, of whom 14 were men, mean age 68.1+/-12.5 years, body mass index 24.5+/-2.0 kg/m2, aortic valve gradient 93+/-32 mm Hg. Pre- to post-AVR a significant decrease was seen in LV mass (271+/-38 vs. 236+/-32g, p<0.01) and LV mass index (154+/-21 vs. 134+/-21 g/m2, p< 0.01). Distal LAD diameter fell from 2.27+/-0.37 to 2.23+/-0.35 mm, p = 0.08). Pre- to post-AVR there was no significant change in resting parameters of peak diastolic velocity (0.43+/-0.16 vs. 0.41+/-0.11 m/s), distal LAD flow 23.3+/-10.1 vs. 20.9+/-5.2 ml/min or distal LAD flow scaled for LV mass (8.7+/-3.8 vs. 9.0+/-2.5 ml/min/100 g LV mass), but there was significant increase in hyperemic peak diastolic velocity (0.71+/-0.26 vs. 1.08+/-0.24 m/s; p<0.01), distal LAD flow (37.8+/-11.3 vs. 53.5+/-16.1 ml/min; p<0.01) and distal LAD flow scaled for LV mass (14.3+/-5.0 vs. 23.3+/-8.5 ml/min/100 g LV mass; p<0.01). Coronary flow reserve, therefore, increased from 1.76+/-0.5 to 2.61+/-0.7. CONCLUSIONS: Coronary flow reserve increases after AVR for aortic stenosis. This increase occurs in tandem with regression of LV hypertrophy.
OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to assess coronary flow reserve (CFR) before and after aortic valve replacement (AVR). BACKGROUND: Coronary flow reserve is impaired under conditions of left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy. It is not known whether CFR improves with regression of LV hypertrophy in humans. METHODS: We investigated 35 patients with pure aortic stenosis, LV hypertrophy and normal coronary arteriograms. Patients underwent adenosine transthoracic echocardiography on two occasions--immediately before AVR and six months postoperatively. Left ventricular mass, distal left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) diameter, flow and CFR were assessed on each occasion. RESULTS: Distal LAD diameter was successfully imaged in 30 patients (86%), and blood flow was successfully imaged in 27 (77%). Paired data were subsequently available in 24 patients, of whom 14 were men, mean age 68.1+/-12.5 years, body mass index 24.5+/-2.0 kg/m2, aortic valve gradient 93+/-32 mm Hg. Pre- to post-AVR a significant decrease was seen in LV mass (271+/-38 vs. 236+/-32g, p<0.01) and LV mass index (154+/-21 vs. 134+/-21 g/m2, p< 0.01). Distal LAD diameter fell from 2.27+/-0.37 to 2.23+/-0.35 mm, p = 0.08). Pre- to post-AVR there was no significant change in resting parameters of peak diastolic velocity (0.43+/-0.16 vs. 0.41+/-0.11 m/s), distal LAD flow 23.3+/-10.1 vs. 20.9+/-5.2 ml/min or distal LAD flow scaled for LV mass (8.7+/-3.8 vs. 9.0+/-2.5 ml/min/100 g LV mass), but there was significant increase in hyperemic peak diastolic velocity (0.71+/-0.26 vs. 1.08+/-0.24 m/s; p<0.01), distal LAD flow (37.8+/-11.3 vs. 53.5+/-16.1 ml/min; p<0.01) and distal LAD flow scaled for LV mass (14.3+/-5.0 vs. 23.3+/-8.5 ml/min/100 g LV mass; p<0.01). Coronary flow reserve, therefore, increased from 1.76+/-0.5 to 2.61+/-0.7. CONCLUSIONS: Coronary flow reserve increases after AVR for aortic stenosis. This increase occurs in tandem with regression of LV hypertrophy.
Authors: Craig J Hartley; Anilkumar K Reddy; Sridhar Madala; Lloyd H Michael; Mark L Entman; George E Taffet Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2008-02-06 Impact factor: 2.998
Authors: Feng Xie; E Carr Everbach; Shunji Gao; Lucas K Drvol; William T Shi; Francois Vignon; Jeff E Powers; John Lof; Thomas R Porter Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2011-01-05 Impact factor: 2.998
Authors: Juefei Wu; Feng Xie; Tanmay Kumar; Jinjin Liu; John Lof; William Shi; E Carr Everbach; Thomas R Porter Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2014-03-07 Impact factor: 2.998
Authors: Attila Nemes; Tamás Forster; Attila Thury; Zsolt Kovács; Krisztina Boda; Miklós Csanády Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Craig J Hartley; Anilkumar K Reddy; Sridhar Madala; Lloyd H Michael; Mark L Entman; George E Taffet Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 2.998
Authors: Wilfried Dinh; Werner Nickl; Jan Smettan; Frank Kramer; Thomas Krahn; Thomas Scheffold; Michael Coll Barroso; Hilmar Brinkmann; Till Koehler; Mark Lankisch; Reiner Füth Journal: Cardiovasc Ultrasound Date: 2010-07-26 Impact factor: 2.062
Authors: Arjen van der Horst; Frits L Boogaard; Marcel van't Veer; Marcel C M Rutten; Nico H J Pijls; Frans N van de Vosse Journal: Comput Math Methods Med Date: 2013-03-04 Impact factor: 2.238