Literature DB >> 18156619

Inconsistencies of echocardiographic criteria for the grading of aortic valve stenosis.

Jan Minners1, Martin Allgeier, Christa Gohlke-Baerwolf, Rolf-Peter Kienzle, Franz-Josef Neumann, Nikolaus Jander.   

Abstract

AIM: The present study tests the consistency of echocardiographic criteria for the grading of aortic valve stenosis. METHODS AND
RESULTS: Current guidelines/recommendations define severe stenosis as an aortic valve area (AVA) <1 cm2 (or <0.6 cm2 adjusted for body surface area), mean pressure gradient (DeltaPm) >40 mmHg, or peak flow velocity (Vmax) >4 m/s. We tested the consistency of the three criteria for the grading of aortic valve stenosis in 3483 echocardiography studies performed in 2427 patients with normal left ventricular (LV) systolic function and a calculated AVA of < or =2 cm2. We calculated curve fits for the relationship between AVA and DeltaPm using the Gorlin equation and between AVA and Vmax based on the continuity equation for our study population. An AVA of 1.0 cm2 correlated to a DeltaPm of 21 mmHg and a Vmax of 3.3 m/s. Conversely, a DeltaPm of 40 mmHg corresponds to an AVA of 0.75 cm2 and a Vmax of 4.0 m/s to an AVA of 0.82 cm2. Consequently, severe stenosis was diagnosed in 69% of patients based on AVA, 45% on Vmax, and 40% on DeltaPm. Stroke volume was lower in inconsistently graded patients (65 +/- 11 mL vs. consistently graded: 70 +/- 14 mL, P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: The criteria for the grading of aortic stenosis are inconsistent in patients with normal systolic LV function. On the basis of AVA, a higher proportion of patients is classified as having severe aortic valve stenosis compared with mean pressure gradient and peak flow velocity. Discrepant grading in these patients may be partly due to reduced stroke volume.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18156619     DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehm543

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Heart J        ISSN: 0195-668X            Impact factor:   29.983


  65 in total

Review 1.  Cardiac imaging in valvular heart disease.

Authors:  W S Choo; R P Steeds
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 2.  Low gradient "severe" aortic stenosis with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction.

Authors:  Alper Ozkan
Journal:  Cardiovasc Diagn Ther       Date:  2012-03

Review 3.  Evaluation of aortic stenosis: an update--including low-flow States, myocardial mechanics, and stress testing.

Authors:  Luc A Pierard; Raluca Dulgheru
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 2.931

4.  Invasive hemodynamic assessments during transcatheter aortic valve implantation: comparison of patient outcomes in higher vs. lower transvalvular gradients with respect to left ventricular ejection fraction.

Authors:  Jury Schewel; Dimitry Schewel; Christian Frerker; Peter Wohlmuth; Karl-Heinz Kuck; Ulrich Schäfer
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2015-07-16       Impact factor: 5.460

Review 5.  Low-flow/low-gradient aortic stenosis-Still a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge.

Authors:  Anja Vogelgesang; Gerd Hasenfuss; Claudius Jacobshagen
Journal:  Clin Cardiol       Date:  2017-05-23       Impact factor: 2.882

Review 6.  Low flow low gradient aortic stenosis: clinical pathways.

Authors:  I Sathyamurthy; K Jayanthi
Journal:  Indian Heart J       Date:  2014-11-20

Review 7.  Workup and Management of Patients With Paradoxical Low-Flow, Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis.

Authors:  Mohamed-Salah Annabi; Marine Clisson; Marie-Annick Clavel; Philippe Pibarot
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2018-05-02

8.  Flow-gradient patterns in severe aortic stenosis with preserved ejection fraction: clinical characteristics and predictors of survival.

Authors:  Mackram F Eleid; Paul Sorajja; Hector I Michelena; Joseph F Malouf; Christopher G Scott; Patricia A Pellikka
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2013-09-18       Impact factor: 29.690

9.  Early clinical and echocardiographic outcomes after SAPIEN 3 transcatheter aortic valve replacement in inoperable, high-risk and intermediate-risk patients with aortic stenosis.

Authors:  Susheel Kodali; Vinod H Thourani; Jonathon White; S Chris Malaisrie; Scott Lim; Kevin L Greason; Mathew Williams; Mayra Guerrero; Andrew C Eisenhauer; Samir Kapadia; Dean J Kereiakes; Howard C Herrmann; Vasilis Babaliaros; Wilson Y Szeto; Rebecca T Hahn; Philippe Pibarot; Neil J Weissman; Jonathon Leipsic; Philipp Blanke; Brian K Whisenant; Rakesh M Suri; Raj R Makkar; Girma M Ayele; Lars G Svensson; John G Webb; Michael J Mack; Craig R Smith; Martin B Leon
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2016-03-31       Impact factor: 29.983

Review 10.  Paradoxical low flow and/or low gradient severe aortic stenosis despite preserved left ventricular ejection fraction: implications for diagnosis and treatment.

Authors:  Jean G Dumesnil; Philippe Pibarot; Blase Carabello
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2009-09-08       Impact factor: 29.983

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.