Literature DB >> 28814490

Clinical features and prognosis of patients with isolated severe aortic stenosis and valve area less than 1.0 cm2.

Praveen Mehrotra1,2, Katrijn Jansen2, Timothy C Tan2, Aidan Flynn2, Judy W Hung2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Current guidelines define severe aortic stenosis (AS) as an aortic valve area (AVA)≤1.0 cm2, but some authors have suggested that the AVA cut-off be decreased to 0.8 cm2. The aim of this study was, therefore, to better describe the clinical features and prognosis of patients with an AVA of 0.8-0.99 cm2.
METHODS: Patients with isolated, severe AS and ejection fraction ≥55% with an AVA of 0.8-0.99 cm2 (n=105) were compared with those with an AVA<0.8 cm2 (n=155) and 1.0-1.3 cm2 (n=81). The endpoint of this study was a combination of death from any cause or aortic valve replacement at or before 3 years.
RESULTS: Patients with an AVA of 0.8-0.99 cm2 group comprised predominantly normal-flow, low-gradient (NFLG) AS, while high gradients and low flow were more often observed with an AVA<0.8 cm2. The frequency of symptoms was not significantly different between an AVA of 0.8-0.99 cm2 and 1.0-1.3 cm2. The combined endpoint was achieved in 71%, 52% and 21% of patients with an AVA of 0.8 cm2, 0.8-0.99 cm2and 1.0-1.3 cm2, respectively (p<0.001). Among patients with an AVA of 0.8-0.99 cm2, NFLG AS was associated with a lower hazard (HR=0.40, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.68, p=0.001) of achieving the combined endpoint with outcomes similar to moderate AS in the first 1.5 years of follow-up. Patients with high-gradient or low-flow AS with an AVA of 0.8-0.99 cm2 had outcomes similar to those with an AVA<0.8 cm2. The sensitivity for the combined endpoint was 61% for an AVA cut-off of 0.8 cm2 and 91% for a cut-off of 1.0 cm2.
CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of patients with AS with an AVA of 0.8-0.99 cm2 are variable and are more precisely defined by flow-gradient status. Our findings support the current AVA cut-off of 1.0 cm2. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

Entities:  

Keywords:  aortic stenosis; valve disease surgery

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28814490     DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2016-310729

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


  4 in total

1.  Rationale and design of SAVI-AoS: A physiologic study of patients with symptomatic moderate aortic valve stenosis and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction.

Authors:  Rob Eerdekens; Pim Tonino; Jo Zelis; Rik Adrichem; Jung-Min Ahn; Jesse Demandt; Ashkan Eftekhari; Mohamed El Farissi; Phillip Freeman; Abdul Rahman Ihdayhid; Nikolaos Kakouros; Dae-Hee Kim; Seung-Ah Lee; Nicolas M Van Mieghem; Waqas Qureshi; Nils P Johnson
Journal:  Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc       Date:  2022-05-27

Review 2.  The contemporary role of echocardiography in the assessment and management of aortic stenosis.

Authors:  Takeshi Kitai; Rayji S Tsutsui
Journal:  J Med Ultrason (2001)       Date:  2019-12-02       Impact factor: 1.314

3.  Characteristics and Prognosis of Patients With Moderate Aortic Stenosis and Preserved Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction.

Authors:  Geraud Delesalle; Yohann Bohbot; Dan Rusinaru; Quentin Delpierre; Sylvestre Maréchaux; Christophe Tribouilloy
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2019-03-19       Impact factor: 5.501

Review 4.  Moderate Aortic Stenosis: What is it and When Should We Intervene?

Authors:  Sveeta Badiani; Sanjeev Bhattacharyya; Nikoo Aziminia; Thomas A Treibel; Guy Lloyd
Journal:  Interv Cardiol       Date:  2021-05-27
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.