Orthostatic stress echocardiography as a useful test to measure variability of transvalvular pressure gradients in aortic stenosis

The aim of the study was to assess the influence of the orthostatic stress test on changes in aortic pressure gradients in patients with aortic stenosis (AS). METHODS: The orthostatic stress test was performed in 56 AS patients. The maximum aortic gradient was compared between the supine and the upright position (using Doppler echocardiography from the apical window). The left hand of each patient was kept on top of their head for both readings. 21 patients were excluded from the study for three reasons: 1) atrial fibrillation (significant beat-to-beat variability of measured gradient), 2) suboptimal Doppler signal during the orthostatic test, and 3) aortic gradient significantly higher in suprasternal or right parasternal windows than in apical window (different direction of stenosed blood jets) in the supine examination. The last limitation (#3) is methodologically important because during the orthostatic examination, only the transapical measurement was used. We were able to analyze 35 AS patients (20 males, 15 females, mean age 74.8 ± 9.2 years). RESULTS: The wide range of severity of AS was examined (maximal aortic gradient in the supine position from 30 to 146 mmHg). With regard to statistical trends, the mean value of the maximum aortic gradient significantly decreased after orthostatic stress (from 87.5 ± 28.6 to 75.8 ± 23.7 mmHg), p > 0.01). In 7 patients (increasing responders) the peak aortic gradient slightly increased during the stress test. Five of the seven only increased by a few percent. The other two patients increased by nearly 10%. In contrast, the remaining 28 AS patients’ gradient decreased by as much as 40% (decreasing responders). CONCLUSIONS: The orthostatic position test frequently generated a decrease of “theoretically fixed at rest” valvular gradient in AS. The combination of the stiffened stenotic valve apparatus and a reduced LV preload may be responsible for this decreasing response

Sex-related differences in clinical outcomes and quality of life after transcatheter aortic valve implantation for severe aortic stenosis

Introduction: There are inconsistent data on the sex-related differences in clinical outcomes and quality of life (QoL) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Aim: We sought to investigate sex-related differences in procedural, clinical and QoL outcomes of TAVI. Material and methods: A total of 101 consecutive patients undergoing TAVI were enrolled. Patients were stratified by gender. Baseline characteristics, procedural and long-term clinical outcomes as well as frailty and QoL indices (EQ-5D-3L questionnaire) were compared between women and men. Results: Women represented 60.4% of the study population. Periprocedural risk measured with the Logistic EuroSCORE and STS scale was similar for women and men. There were no differences in 30-day or 12-month all-cause mortality between groups (women vs. men: 9.8% vs. 12.5%; age-adjusted odds ratio (OR) (95% CI): 1.38 (0.39–4.94); 13.1% vs. 25.0%; age-adjusted OR (95% CI): 2.51 (0.87–7.25)). Men were at higher risk of new onset atrial fibrillation at follow-up (1.6% vs. 17.5%; age-adjusted OR (95% CI): 14.61 (1.68–127.37)). In multivariable Cox regression analysis, a history of stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA) (hazard ratio (HR)) (95% CI): 3.93 (1.39–11.07) and blood transfusion (HR (95% CI): 2.84 (1.06–7.63)) were identified as independent factors affecting 12-month mortality. No differences in QoL parameters were noted. Conclusions: The TAVI can be considered as an effective and safe treatment in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis, regardless of gender

Mitral and aortic regurgitation following transcatheter aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the impact of postprocedural mitral regurgitation (MR), in an interaction with aortic regurgitation (AR), on mortality following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). METHODS: To assess the interaction between MR and AR, we compared the survival rate of patients (i) without both significant MR and AR versus (ii) those with either significant MR or significant AR versus (iii) with significant MR and AR, all postprocedure. 381 participants of the Polish Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Registry (166 males (43.6%) and 215 females (56.4%), age 78.8±7.4 years) were analysed. Follow-up was 94.1±96.5 days. RESULTS: Inhospital and midterm mortality were 6.6% and 10.2%, respectively. Significant MR and AR were present in 16% and 8.1% patients, including 3.1% patients with both significant MR and AR. Patients with significant versus insignificant AR differed with respect to mortality (log rank p=0.009). This difference was not apparent in a subgroup of patients without significant MR (log rank p=0.80). In a subgroup of patients without significant AR, there were no significant differences in mortality between individuals with versus without significant MR (log rank p=0.44). Significant MR and AR had a significant impact on mortality only when associated with each other (log rank p<0.0001). At multivariate Cox regression modelling concomitant significant MR and AR were independently associated with mortality (OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.54 to 5.71, p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Significant MR or AR postprocedure, when isolated, had no impact on survival. Combined MR and AR had a significant impact on a patient's prognosis