Literature DB >> 26834233

Low-flow low-gradient aortic stenosis: surgical outcomes and mid-term results after isolated aortic valve replacement.

Ana Lopez-Marco1, Harriet Miller2, Aprim Youhana2, Saeed Ashraf2, Afzal Zaidi2, Farah Bhatti2, Adrian Ionescu3, Pankaj Kumar2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To analyse operative outcomes and mid-term results following isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients with low-flow low-gradient severe aortic stenosis (LFLG AS) compared with normal flow high-gradient aortic stenosis (NFHG AS).
METHODS: A retrospective analysis of data for all isolated AVRs performed for AS at our centre in the last 17 years (n = 846). Two groups were identified: LFLG AS (n = 198, 23%) [subdivided into: True LFLG AS (n = 66, 33%) and paradoxical LFLG AS (n = 132, 67%)] and NFHG AS (n = 648, 77%). Follow-up was done by clinical visits and telephone interviews. The mean follow-up was 5.8 ± 4.2 years.
RESULTS: The mean age was 71.5 ± 9.7 years in the LFLG AS group and 68.7 ± 10.8 years in the NFHG group (P = 0.01). The LFLG AS group had a mean gradient 31.2 ± 7.4 mmHg compared with 59.1 ± 16.6 mmHg in the NFHG group (P = 0.001). Diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, previous coronary disease, peripheral vascular disease, atrial fibrillation and pulmonary hypertension were significantly more frequent in the LFLG AS patients (P < 0.01). The in-hospital mortality rate was 2% in the LFLG and 1% in the NFHG group, P = 0.13. One- and 5-year mortality rates were significantly higher in the LFLG group (13 and 28 vs 4 and 16% in the NFHG, respectively, P = 0.001). Patients with true LFLG AS also had a significantly higher long-term mortality than those with paradoxical LFLG AS (27 vs 6% at 1 year and 42 vs 20% at 5 years, P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: AVR in patients with LFLG AS is associated with similar surgical mortality but increased mid-term mortality compared with NFHG AS. Patients with true LFLG AS have the worst outcomes. Surgery should still be offered for LFLG AS on prognostic grounds and for symptomatic benefit among survivors.
© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adult cardiac; Aortic stenosis; Aortic valve replacement

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26834233     DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezv449

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg        ISSN: 1010-7940            Impact factor:   4.191


  2 in total

Review 1.  Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis; the Diagnostic Dilemma.

Authors:  Osama Alkhalaila; Mansour Al Shehadat
Journal:  Heart Views       Date:  2022-05-16

2.  Effects of Aortic Valve Replacement on Severe Aortic Stenosis and Preserved Systolic Function: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Qishi Zheng; Andie H Djohan; Enghow Lim; Zee Pin Ding; Lieng H Ling; Luming Shi; Edwin Shih-Yen Chan; Calvin Woon Loong Chin
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-07-11       Impact factor: 4.379

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.