Multimodality imaging for discordant low-gradient aortic stenosis : assessing the valve and the myocardium

Aortic stenosis (AS) is a disease of the valve and the myocardium. A correct assessment of the valve disease severity is key to define the need for aortic valve replacement (AVR), but a better understanding of the myocardial consequences of the increased afterload is paramount to optimize the timing of the intervention. Transthoracic echocardiography remains the cornerstone of AS assessment, as it is universally available, and it allows a comprehensive structural and hemodynamic evaluation of both the aortic valve and the rest of the heart. However, it may not be sufficient as a significant proportion of patients with severe AS presents with discordant grading (i.e., an AVA ≤1 cm2 and a mean gradien

Accuracy of stroke volume measurement with phase-contrast cardiovascular magnetic resonance in patients with aortic stenosis

Background: Phase contrast (PC) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) in the ascending aorta (AAo) is widely used to calculate left ventricular (LV) stroke volume (SV). The accuracy of PC CMR may be altered by turbulent fow. Measurement of SV at another site is suggested in the presence of aortic stenosis, but very few data validates the accuracy or inaccuracy of PC in that setting. Our objective is to compare fow measurements obtained in the AAo and LV outfow tract (LVOT) in patients with aortic stenosis. Methods: Retrospective analysis of patients with aortic stenosis who had CMR and echocardiography. Patients with mitral regurgitation were excluded. PC in the AAo and LVOT were acquired to derive SV. LV SV from end-systolic and end-diastolic tracings was used as the reference measure. A diference≥10% between the volumetric method and PC derived SVs was considered discordant. Metrics of turbulence and jet eccentricity were assessed to explore the predictors of discordant measurements. Results: We included 88 patients, 41% with bicuspid aortic valve. LVOT SV was concordant with the volumetric method in 79 (90%) patients vs 52 (59%) patients for AAo SV (p=0.015). In multivariate analysis, aortic stenosis fow jet angle was a strong predictor of discordant measurement in the AAo (p=0.003). Mathematical correction for the jet angle improved the concordance from 59 to 91%. Concordance was comparable in patients with bicuspid and trileafet valves (57% and 62% concordance respectively; p=0.11). Accuracy of SV measured in the LVOT was not infuenced by jet eccentricity. For aortic regurgitation quantifcation, PC in the AAo had better correlation to volumetric assessments than LVOT PC. Conclusion: LVOT PC SV in patients with aortic stenosis and eccentric jet might be more accurate compared to the AAo SV. Mathematical correction for the jet angle in the AAo might be another alternative to improve accuracy

Effect of regional upper septal hypertrophy on echocardiographic assessment of left ventricular mass and remodeling in aortic stenosis

Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) is the reference method for evaluation of aortic stenosis (AS), and it is extensively used to quantitate left ventricular (LV) mass and volumes. Regional upper septal hypertrophy (USH) or septal bulge is a frequent finding in patients with AS and may lead to overestimation of LV mass when using linear measurements. The objective of this study was to compare estimates of LV mass obtained by two-dimensional transthoracic echocardiographic LV dimensions measured at different levels of the LV cavity with those obtained by cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). Methods: One hundred six patients (mean age, 63 6 15 years; 68% men) with AS were included in this subanalysis of the PROGRESSA study. Two-dimensional transthoracic echocardiographic measurements of LV dimensions were obtained at the basal level (BL; as recommended in guidelines), immediately below the septal bulge (BSB), and at a midventricular level (ML). Regional USH was defined as a basal interventricular septal thickness $ 13 mm and >1.3 times the thickness of the septal wall at the ML. Agreement between transthoracic echocardiographic and CMR measures was evaluated using Bland-Altman analysis. Results: The distribution of AS severity was mild in 23%, moderate in 57%, and severe in 20% of patients. Regional USH was present in 28 patients (26%). In the whole cohort, two-dimensional TTE overestimated LV mass (bias: BL, +60 6 31 g; BSB, +59 6 32 g; ML, +54 6 32 g; P = .02). The biplane Simpson method slightly but significantly underestimated LV end-diastolic volume (bias 10 6 20 mL, P < .001) compared with CMR. Overestimation of LV mass was more marked in patients with USH when measuring at the BL and was significantly lower when measuring LV dimensions at the ML (P < .025 vs BL and BSB). Conclusions: Two-dimensional TTE systematically overestimated LV mass and underestimated LV volumes compared with CMR. However, the bias between TTE and CMR was less important when measuring at the ML. Measurements at the BL as suggested in guidelines should be avoided, and measurements at the ML should be preferred in patients with AS, especially in those with USH

Contrast-enhanced computed tomography assessment of aortic stenosis

Abstract Objectives Non-contrast CT aortic valve calcium scoring ignores the contribution of valvular fibrosis in aortic stenosis. We assessed aortic valve calcific and non-calcific disease using contrast-enhanced CT. Methods This was a post hoc analysis of 164 patients (median age 71 (IQR 66–77) years, 78% male) with aortic stenosis (41 mild, 89 moderate, 34 severe; 7% bicuspid) who underwent echocardiography and contrast-enhanced CT as part of imaging studies. Calcific and non-calcific (fibrosis) valve tissue volumes were quantified and indexed to annulus area, using Hounsfield unit thresholds calibrated against blood pool radiodensity. The fibrocalcific ratio assessed the relative contributions of valve fibrosis and calcification. The fibrocalcific volume (sum of indexed non-calcific and calcific volumes) was compared with aortic valve peak velocity and, in a subgroup, histology and valve weight. Results Contrast-enhanced CT calcium volumes correlated with CT calcium score (r=0.80, p<0.001) and peak aortic jet velocity (r=0.55, p<0.001). The fibrocalcific ratio decreased with increasing aortic stenosis severity (mild: 1.29 (0.98–2.38), moderate: 0.87 (1.48–1.72), severe: 0.47 (0.33–0.78), p<0.001) while the fibrocalcific volume increased (mild: 109 (75–150), moderate: 191 (117–253), severe: 274 (213–344) mm3/cm2). Fibrocalcific volume correlated with ex vivo valve weight (r=0.72, p<0.001). Compared with the Agatston score, fibrocalcific volume demonstrated a better correlation with peak aortic jet velocity (r=0.59 and r=0.67, respectively), particularly in females (r=0.38 and r=0.72, respectively). Conclusions Contrast-enhanced CT assessment of aortic valve calcific and non-calcific volumes correlates with aortic stenosis severity and may be preferable to non-contrast CT when fibrosis is a significant contributor to valve obstruction

Prosthesis-patient mismatch after aortic valve replacement in the PARTNER 2 trial and registry

Objectives This study aimed to compare incidence and impact of measured prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPMM) versus predicted PPM (PPMP) after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Background TAVR studies have used measured effective orifice area indexed (EOAi) to body surface area (BSA) to define PPM, but most SAVR series have used predicted EOAi. This difference may contribute to discrepancies in incidence and outcomes of PPM between series. Methods The study analyzed SAVR patients from the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) 2A trial and TAVR patients from the PARTNER 2 SAPIEN 3 Intermediate Risk registry. PPM was classified as moderate if EOAi ≤0.85 cm2/m2 (≤0.70 if obese: body mass index ≥30 kg/m2) and severe if EOAi ≤0.65 cm2/m2 (≤0.55 if obese). PPMM was determined by the core lab–measured EOAi on 30-day echocardiogram. PPMP was determined by 2 methods: 1) using normal EOA reference values previously reported for each valve model and size (PPMP1; n = 929 SAVR, 1,069 TAVR) indexed to BSA; and 2) using normal reference EOA predicted from aortic annulus size measured by computed tomography (PPMP2; n = 864 TAVR only) indexed to BSA. Primary endpoint was the composite of 5-year all-cause death and rehospitalization. Results The incidence of moderate and severe PPMP was much lower than PPMM in both SAVR (PPMP1: 28.4% and 1.2% vs. PPMM: 31.0% and 23.6%) and TAVR (PPMP1: 21.0% and 0.1% and PPMP2: 17.0% and 0% vs. PPMM: 27.9% and 5.7%). The incidence of severe PPMM and severe PPMP1 was lower in TAVR versus SAVR (P < 0.001). The presence of PPM by any method was associated with higher transprosthetic gradient. Severe PPMP1 was independently associated with events in SAVR after adjustment for sex and Society of Thoracic Surgeons score (hazard ratio: 3.18;95% CI: 1.69-5.96; P < 0.001), whereas no association was observed between PPM by any method and outcomes in TAVR. Conclusions EOAi measured by echocardiography results in a higher incidence of PPM following SAVR or TAVR than PPM based on predicted EOAi. Severe PPMP is rare (<1.5%), but is associated with increased all-cause death and rehospitalization after SAVR, whereas it is absent following TAVR

Usefulness of energy loss index for adjudication of low-gradient aortic stenosis severity

Up to 40% of patients with aortic stenosis (AS) present with a low gradient (i.e., a mean transvalvular gradient [MG] <40 mmHg) despite a small aortic valve area (AVA≤1 cm2) at echocardiography or cardiac catheterization. This ‘discordant grading’ situation raises uncertainty about the true severity of AS and therefore about therapeutic decision making (1). A thorough, integrative approach including assessment of flow status and quantitation of aortic valve calcium score by multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) has been proposed in the 2017 European guidelines for discriminating true versus pseudo-severe AS in the patients with low-gradient AS (2). It is, indeed, estimated that 50 to 70% of patients with low-gradient AS have a true-severe AS and thus an indication (Class I or IIa) for aortic valve replacement. However, it remains crucial to identify patients with pseudo-severe AS, who should be managed conservatively