BACKGROUND: Cardiac adaptation to aortic stenosis (AS) appears to differ according to sex, but reverse remodeling after aortic valve replacement has not been extensively described. The aim of the study was to determine using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging whether any sex-related differences exist in AS in terms of left ventricular (LV) remodeling, myocardial fibrosis, and reverse remodeling after valve replacement. METHODS: One hundred patients (men, n = 60) with severe AS undergoing either transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement underwent cardiac magnetic resonance scans at baseline and 6 months after valve replacement. RESULTS: Despite similar baseline comorbidity and severity of AS, women had a lower indexed LV mass than did men (65.3 ± 18.4 vs 81.5 ± 21.3 g/m(2), P < .001) and a smaller indexed LV end-diastolic volume (87.3 ± 17.5 vs 101.2 ± 28.6 mL/m(2), P = .002) with a similar LV ejection fraction (58.6% ± 10.2% vs 54.8% ± 12.9%, P = .178). Total myocardial fibrosis mass was similar between sexes (2.3 ± 4.1 vs 1.3 ± 1.1 g, P = .714), albeit with a differing distribution according to sex. After aortic valve replacement, men had more absolute LV mass regression than did women (18.3 ± 10.6 vs 12.7 ± 8.8 g/m(2), P = .007). When expressed as a percentage reduction of baseline indexed LV mass, mass regression was similar between the sexes (men 21.7% ± 10.1% vs women 18.4% ± 11.0%, P = .121). There was no sex-related difference in postprocedural LV ejection fraction or aortic regurgitation. Sex was not found to be a predictor of LV reverse remodeling on multiple regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS: There are significant differences in the way that male and female hearts adapt to AS. Six months after aortic valve replacement, there are no sex-related differences in reverse remodeling, but superior reverse remodeling in men as a result of their more adverse remodeling profile at baseline.
BACKGROUND: Cardiac adaptation to aortic stenosis (AS) appears to differ according to sex, but reverse remodeling after aortic valve replacement has not been extensively described. The aim of the study was to determine using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging whether any sex-related differences exist in AS in terms of left ventricular (LV) remodeling, myocardial fibrosis, and reverse remodeling after valve replacement. METHODS: One hundred patients (men, n = 60) with severe AS undergoing either transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement underwent cardiac magnetic resonance scans at baseline and 6 months after valve replacement. RESULTS: Despite similar baseline comorbidity and severity of AS, women had a lower indexed LV mass than did men (65.3 ± 18.4 vs 81.5 ± 21.3 g/m(2), P < .001) and a smaller indexed LV end-diastolic volume (87.3 ± 17.5 vs 101.2 ± 28.6 mL/m(2), P = .002) with a similar LV ejection fraction (58.6% ± 10.2% vs 54.8% ± 12.9%, P = .178). Total myocardial fibrosis mass was similar between sexes (2.3 ± 4.1 vs 1.3 ± 1.1 g, P = .714), albeit with a differing distribution according to sex. After aortic valve replacement, men had more absolute LV mass regression than did women (18.3 ± 10.6 vs 12.7 ± 8.8 g/m(2), P = .007). When expressed as a percentage reduction of baseline indexed LV mass, mass regression was similar between the sexes (men 21.7% ± 10.1% vs women 18.4% ± 11.0%, P = .121). There was no sex-related difference in postprocedural LV ejection fraction or aortic regurgitation. Sex was not found to be a predictor of LV reverse remodeling on multiple regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS: There are significant differences in the way that male and female hearts adapt to AS. Six months after aortic valve replacement, there are no sex-related differences in reverse remodeling, but superior reverse remodeling in men as a result of their more adverse remodeling profile at baseline.
Authors: Anish N Bhuva; Thomas A Treibel; Antonio De Marvao; Carlo Biffi; Timothy J W Dawes; Georgia Doumou; Wenjia Bai; Kush Patel; Redha Boubertakh; Daniel Rueckert; Declan P O'Regan; Alun D Hughes; James C Moon; Charlotte H Manisty Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Thomas A Treibel; Rebecca Kozor; Marianna Fontana; Camilla Torlasco; Patricia Reant; Sveeta Badiani; Maria Espinoza; John Yap; Javier Diez; Alun D Hughes; Guy Lloyd; James C Moon Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-11-15
Authors: Brian A Aguado; Katherine B Schuetze; Joseph C Grim; Cierra J Walker; Anne C Cox; Tova L Ceccato; Aik-Choon Tan; Carmen C Sucharov; Leslie A Leinwand; Matthew R G Taylor; Timothy A McKinsey; Kristi S Anseth Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2019-09-11 Impact factor: 19.319
Authors: Laura E Dobson; Tarique A Musa; Akhlaque Uddin; Timothy A Fairbairn; Owen J Bebb; Peter P Swoboda; Philip Haaf; James Foley; Pankaj Garg; Graham J Fent; Christopher J Malkin; Daniel J Blackman; Sven Plein; John P Greenwood Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2017-02-22 Impact factor: 5.364