z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Outcome of Flow-Gradient Patterns of Aortic Stenosis After Aortic Valve Replacement
Author(s) -
Erwan Salaün,
MarieAnnick Clavel,
Rebecca T. Hahn,
Wael A. Jaber,
Federico M. Asch,
Leonardo Rodríguez,
Neil J. Weissman,
Zachary M. Gertz,
Howard C. Herrmann,
Abdellaziz Dahou,
MohamedSalah Annabi,
Oumhani Toubal,
Mathieu Bernier,
Jonathan Beaudoin,
Jonathon Leipsic,
Philipp Blanke,
Carine Ridard,
Géraldine Ong,
Josep RodésCabau,
John G. Webb,
Yiran Zhang,
Maria Alu,
Pamela S. Douglas,
Raj Makkar,
D. Craig Miller,
Brian R. Lindman,
Vinod H. Thourani,
Martin B. Leon,
Philippe Pîbarot
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
circulation cardiovascular interventions
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.621
H-Index - 95
eISSN - 1941-7632
pISSN - 1941-7640
DOI - 10.1161/circinterventions.119.008792
Subject(s) - medicine , cardiology , ejection fraction , stenosis , aortic valve replacement , stroke volume , aortic valve , aortic valve stenosis , stroke (engine) , heart failure , mechanical engineering , engineering
Background: Although aortic valve replacement is associated with a major benefit in high-gradient (HG) severe aortic stenosis (AS), the results in low-gradient (LG, mean gradient <40 mm Hg) AS are conflicting. LG severe AS may be subdivided in classical low-flow (left ventricular ejection fraction <50%) and LG (CLF-LG); paradoxical low-flow (left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50% but stroke volume index <35 mL/m2 ) and LG; and normal-flow (left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50% and stroke volume index ≥35 mL/m2 ) and LG. The primary objective is to determine in the PARTNER 2 trial (The Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) and registry the outcomes after aortic valve replacement of the 4 flow-gradient groups.Methods: A total of 3511 patients from the PARTNER 2 Cohort A randomized trial (n=1910) and SAPIEN 3 registry (n=1601) were included. The flow-gradient pattern was determined at baseline transthoracic echocardiography and classified as follows: (1) HG; (2) CLF-LG; (3) paradoxical low-flow-LG; and (4) normal-flow-LG. The primary end point for this analysis was the composite of (1) death; (2) rehospitalization for heart failure symptoms and valve prosthesis complication; or (3) stroke. Results: The distribution was HG, 2229 patients (63.5%); CLF-LG, 689 patients (19.6%); paradoxical low-flow-LG, 247 patients (7.0%); and normal-flow-LG, 346 patients (9.9%). The 2-year rate of primary end point was higher in CLF-LG (38.8%) versus HG: 31.8% (P =0.002) and normal-flow-LG: 32.1% (P =0.05) but was not statistically different from paradoxical low-flow-LG: 33.6% (P =0.18). There was no significant difference in the 2-year rates of clinical events between transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus surgical aortic valve replacement in the whole cohort and within each flow-gradient group.Conclusions: The LG AS pattern was highly prevalent (36.5%) in the PARTNER 2 trial and registry. CLF-LG was the most common pattern of LG AS and was associated with higher rates of death, rehospitalization, or stroke at 2 years compared with the HG group. Clinical outcomes were as good in the LG AS groups with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction compared with the HG group.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom