OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of aortic valve replacement (AVR) on left ventricular (LV) function and LV remodeling, comparing patients with aortic valve stenosis to patients with aortic regurgitation. BACKGROUND: Aortic valve disease is associated with eccentric or concentric LV hypertrophy and changes in LV function. The relationship between LV geometry and LV function and the effect of LV remodeling after AVR on diastolic filling, in patients with aortic valve stenosis compared with aortic regurgitation, are largely unknown.Nineteen patients with aortic valve disease (12 aortic valve stenosis, 7 aortic regurgitation) were studied using magnetic resonance imaging to assess LV geometry and LV function before and 9 +/- 3 months after AVR. Ten age-matched healthy males served as control subjects. RESULTS: Before AVR, the ratio between left ventricular mass index (LVMI) and left ventricular end-diastolic volume index (LVEDVI) was only increased in patients with aortic valve stenosis (1.37 +/- 0.16 g/ml) compared with control subjects (0.93 +/- 0.08 g/ml, p < 0.05). After AVR, LVMI/LVEDVI decreased significantly in aortic valve stenosis (to 1.15 +/- 0.14 g/ml, p < 0.0001), but increased significantly in aortic regurgitation (1.02 +/- 0.20 g/ml to 1.44 +/- 0.27 g/ml, p < 0.0001). Before AVR, diastolic filling was impaired in both aortic valve stenosis and aortic regurgitation. Early after AVR, diastolic filling improved in patients with aortic valve stenosis, whereas patients with aortic regurgitation showed a deterioration in diastolic filling. CONCLUSIONS: Early after AVR, patients with aortic valve stenosis show a decrease in both LVMI and LVMI/LVEDVI and an improvement in diastolic filling, whereas in patients with aortic regurgitation, LVMI decreases less rapidly than LVEDVI, causing concentric remodeling of the LV, most likely explaining the observed deterioration of diastolic filling in these patients.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of aortic valve replacement (AVR) on left ventricular (LV) function and LV remodeling, comparing patients with aortic valve stenosis to patients with aortic regurgitation. BACKGROUND:Aortic valve disease is associated with eccentric or concentric LV hypertrophy and changes in LV function. The relationship between LV geometry and LV function and the effect of LV remodeling after AVR on diastolic filling, in patients with aortic valve stenosis compared with aortic regurgitation, are largely unknown.Nineteen patients with aortic valve disease (12 aortic valve stenosis, 7 aortic regurgitation) were studied using magnetic resonance imaging to assess LV geometry and LV function before and 9 +/- 3 months after AVR. Ten age-matched healthy males served as control subjects. RESULTS: Before AVR, the ratio between left ventricular mass index (LVMI) and left ventricular end-diastolic volume index (LVEDVI) was only increased in patients with aortic valve stenosis (1.37 +/- 0.16 g/ml) compared with control subjects (0.93 +/- 0.08 g/ml, p < 0.05). After AVR, LVMI/LVEDVI decreased significantly in aortic valve stenosis (to 1.15 +/- 0.14 g/ml, p < 0.0001), but increased significantly in aortic regurgitation (1.02 +/- 0.20 g/ml to 1.44 +/- 0.27 g/ml, p < 0.0001). Before AVR, diastolic filling was impaired in both aortic valve stenosis and aortic regurgitation. Early after AVR, diastolic filling improved in patients with aortic valve stenosis, whereas patients with aortic regurgitation showed a deterioration in diastolic filling. CONCLUSIONS: Early after AVR, patients with aortic valve stenosis show a decrease in both LVMI and LVMI/LVEDVI and an improvement in diastolic filling, whereas in patients with aortic regurgitation, LVMI decreases less rapidly than LVEDVI, causing concentric remodeling of the LV, most likely explaining the observed deterioration of diastolic filling in these patients.
Authors: Roxana Enache; Bogdan A Popescu; Rita Piazza; Denisa Muraru; Andreea Călin; Carmen C Beladan; Monica Roşca; Gian Luigi Nicolosi; Carmen Ginghină Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-05-21 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Kevin G Friedman; Doff B McElhinney; Jonathan Rhodes; Andrew J Powell; Steven D Colan; James E Lock; David W Brown Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2012-10-24 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Brian R Lindman; William J Stewart; Philippe Pibarot; Rebecca T Hahn; Catherine M Otto; Ke Xu; Richard B Devereux; Neil J Weissman; Maurice Enriquez-Sarano; Wilson Y Szeto; Raj Makkar; D Craig Miller; Stamatios Lerakis; Samir Kapadia; Bruce Bowers; Kevin L Greason; Thomas C McAndrew; Yang Lei; Martin B Leon; Pamela S Douglas Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Marc R Dweck; Sanjiv Joshi; Timothy Murigu; Ankur Gulati; Francisco Alpendurada; Andrew Jabbour; Alicia Maceira; Isabelle Roussin; David B Northridge; Philip J Kilner; Stuart A Cook; Nicholas A Boon; John Pepper; Raad H Mohiaddin; David E Newby; Dudley J Pennell; Sanjay K Prasad Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2012-07-28 Impact factor: 5.364