OBJECTIVE: Aortic valve replacement for aortic valve stenosis (AS) and regurgitation (AR) in patients with severe left ventricular (LV) dysfunction contains an increased risk. Few data are available on the outcome of such patients. METHODS: Fifty-five consecutive patients with severe LV dysfunction (ejection fraction, EF; <30%) and aortic valve replacement for AS (n=35) or AR (n=20) were investigated between 1994 and 2001. EF was 25+/-5%, mean transvalvular gradient 26+/-6mmHg (AS), aortic valve area 0.66+/-0.18cm(2) (AS), cardiac index (CI) 2.4+/-0.9l/min/m(2), enddiastolic LV diameter (LVEDD) 64+/-8mm and endsystolic LV diameters (LVESD) was 55+/-3mm. Ninety percent of patients were in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class III/IV at admission to the hospital. Concomitant coronary artery bypass grafts (CABG) were performed in 14 patients. Follow-up examinations including chest X-ray, echocardiography, exercise testing, were performed among survivors. RESULTS: The survival rates for AS were: 1-year 76%, 2-year 68.8%, 5-year 64.2%; for AR: 1-year 94.4%, 2-year 86.5%, 5-year 74.2%. NYHA functional class improved from 90% in class III/IV to 45 (AR group) and 24% (AS group) at follow-up (P<0.02). The LVEDD decreased to 54+/-8mm after 1 year. The EF improved to 38+/-4 (AR group) and 40+/-5% (AS group) at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Despite severe LV dysfunction, increased 1-year mortality especially in the AS group, aortic valve replacement was associated with improved functional status, symptoms and EF in both groups and in most patients. We, therefore, conclude that aortic valve replacement in patients with severe LV dysfunction can be performed with acceptable risk.
OBJECTIVE: Aortic valve replacement for aortic valve stenosis (AS) and regurgitation (AR) in patients with severe left ventricular (LV) dysfunction contains an increased risk. Few data are available on the outcome of such patients. METHODS: Fifty-five consecutive patients with severe LV dysfunction (ejection fraction, EF; <30%) and aortic valve replacement for AS (n=35) or AR (n=20) were investigated between 1994 and 2001. EF was 25+/-5%, mean transvalvular gradient 26+/-6mmHg (AS), aortic valve area 0.66+/-0.18cm(2) (AS), cardiac index (CI) 2.4+/-0.9l/min/m(2), enddiastolic LV diameter (LVEDD) 64+/-8mm and endsystolic LV diameters (LVESD) was 55+/-3mm. Ninety percent of patients were in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class III/IV at admission to the hospital. Concomitant coronary artery bypass grafts (CABG) were performed in 14 patients. Follow-up examinations including chest X-ray, echocardiography, exercise testing, were performed among survivors. RESULTS: The survival rates for AS were: 1-year 76%, 2-year 68.8%, 5-year 64.2%; for AR: 1-year 94.4%, 2-year 86.5%, 5-year 74.2%. NYHA functional class improved from 90% in class III/IV to 45 (AR group) and 24% (AS group) at follow-up (P<0.02). The LVEDD decreased to 54+/-8mm after 1 year. The EF improved to 38+/-4 (AR group) and 40+/-5% (AS group) at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Despite severe LV dysfunction, increased 1-year mortality especially in the AS group, aortic valve replacement was associated with improved functional status, symptoms and EF in both groups and in most patients. We, therefore, conclude that aortic valve replacement in patients with severe LV dysfunction can be performed with acceptable risk.
Authors: Allison C Hill; David W Brown; Steven D Colan; Kimberly Gauvreau; Pedro J del Nido; James E Lock; Rahul H Rathod Journal: Pediatr Cardiol Date: 2014-02-22 Impact factor: 1.655