Literature DB >> 25655063

Haemodynamic and anatomic progression of aortic stenosis.

Virginia Nguyen1, Claire Cimadevilla2, Candice Estellat3, Isabelle Codogno4, Virginie Huart5, Joelle Benessiano5, Xavier Duval6, Philippe Pibarot7, Marie Annick Clavel8, Maurice Enriquez-Sarano8, Alec Vahanian1, David Messika-Zeitoun1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Aortic valve stenosis (AS) is a progressive disease, but the impact of baseline AS haemodynamic or anatomic severity on AS progression remains unclear.
METHODS: In 149 patients (104 mild AS, 36 moderate AS and 9 severe AS) enrolled in 2 ongoing prospective cohorts (COFRASA/GENERAC), we evaluated AS haemodynamic severity at baseline and yearly, thereafter, using echocardiography (mean pressure gradient (MPG)) and AS anatomic severity using CT (degree of aortic valve calcification (AVC)).
RESULTS: After a mean follow-up of 2.9±1.0 years, mean MGP increased from 22±11 to 30±16 mm Hg (+3±3 mm Hg/year), and mean AVC from 1108±891 to 1640±1251 AU (arbitrary units) (+188±176 AU/year). Progression of AS was strongly related to baseline haemodynamic severity (+2±3 mm Hg/year in mild AS, +4±3 mm Hg/year in moderate AS and +5±5 mm Hg/year in severe AS (p=0.01)), and baseline haemodynamic severity was an independent predictor of haemodynamic progression (p=0.0003). Annualised haemodynamic and anatomic progression rates were significantly correlated (r=0.55, p<0.0001), but AVC progression rate was also significantly associated with baseline haemodynamic severity (+141±133 AU/year in mild AS, +279±189 AU/year in moderate AS and +361±293 AU/year in severe AS, p<0.0001), and both baseline MPG and baseline AVC were independent determinants of AVC progression (p<0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: AS progressed faster with increasing haemodynamic or anatomic severity. Our results suggest that a medical strategy aimed at preventing AVC progression may be useful in all subsets of patients with AS including those with severe AS and support the recommended closer follow-up of patients with AS as AS severity increases. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: COFRASA (clinicalTrial.gov number NCT 00338676) and GENERAC (clinicalTrial.gov number NCT00647088). Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25655063     DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2014-307154

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Heart        ISSN: 1355-6037            Impact factor:   5.994


  20 in total

Review 1.  Pathophysiology of Aortic Valve Stenosis: Is It Both Fibrocalcific and Sex Specific?

Authors:  Yoginee Sritharen; Maurice Enriquez-Sarano; Hartzell V Schaff; Grace Casaclang-Verzosa; Jordan D Miller
Journal:  Physiology (Bethesda)       Date:  2017-05

2.  Effect of bicuspid aortic valve phenotype on progression of aortic stenosis.

Authors:  Mylène Shen; Lionel Tastet; Romain Capoulade; Marie Arsenault; Élisabeth Bédard; Marie-Annick Clavel; Philippe Pibarot
Journal:  Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2020-07-01       Impact factor: 6.875

Review 3.  Severe and Asymptomatic Aortic Stenosis Management Challenge: Knowing That We Do Not Really Know.

Authors:  Lionel Tastet; Louis Simard; Marie-Annick Clavel
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2017-05

4.  Systolic hypertension and progression of aortic valve calcification in patients with aortic stenosis: results from the PROGRESSA study.

Authors:  Lionel Tastet; Romain Capoulade; Marie-Annick Clavel; Éric Larose; Mylène Shen; Abdellaziz Dahou; Marie Arsenault; Patrick Mathieu; Élisabeth Bédard; Jean G Dumesnil; Alexe Tremblay; Yohan Bossé; Jean-Pierre Després; Philippe Pibarot
Journal:  Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2016-02-18       Impact factor: 6.875

5.  Effects of the coronary artery disease associated LPA and 9p21 loci on risk of aortic valve stenosis.

Authors:  Teresa Trenkwalder; Christopher P Nelson; Muntaser D Musameh; Ify R Mordi; Thorsten Kessler; Costanza Pellegrini; Radoslaw Debiec; Tobias Rheude; Viktor Lazovic; Lingyao Zeng; Andreas Martinsson; J Gustav Smith; Jesper R Gådin; Anders Franco-Cereceda; Per Eriksson; Jonas B Nielsen; Sarah E Graham; Cristen J Willer; Kristian Hveem; Adnan Kastrati; Peter S Braund; Colin N A Palmer; Amparo Aracil; Oliver Husser; Wolfgang Koenig; Heribert Schunkert; Chim C Lang; Christian Hengstenberg; Nilesh J Samani
Journal:  Int J Cardiol       Date:  2018-11-17       Impact factor: 4.164

6.  Visual scoring of aortic valve calcifications on low-dose CT in lung cancer screening.

Authors:  Yeqing Zhu; Yong Wang; William E Gioia; Rowena Yip; Artit C Jirapatnakul; Michael S Chung; David F Yankelevitz; Claudia I Henschke
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2020-02-10       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 7.  Is There Currently a Place for Combined Mitral and Aortic Transcatheter Interventions?

Authors:  Rodney De Palma; Crochan J O'Sullivan; Magnus Settergren
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2019-09-13       Impact factor: 2.931

Review 8.  Risk Stratification in Patients With Aortic Stenosis Using Novel Imaging Approaches.

Authors:  Calvin W L Chin; Tania A Pawade; David E Newby; Marc R Dweck
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 7.792

9.  Aortic stenosis and CT calcium scoring: is it for everyone?

Authors:  Timothy R G Cartlidge; Tania A Pawade; Marc R Dweck
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2016-09-19       Impact factor: 5.994

Review 10.  The Role of Imaging in Aortic Valve Disease.

Authors:  Russell J Everett; David E Newby; Andrew Jabbour; Zahi A Fayad; Marc R Dweck
Journal:  Curr Cardiovasc Imaging Rep       Date:  2016-06-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.