Risk prediction in patients with classical low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis undergoing surgical intervention

Imagem de Miniatura
Arquivos
art_TESSARI_Risk_prediction_in_patients_with_classical_lowflow_lowgradient_2023.PDF (660.29 KB)
Citações na Scopus
0
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2023
DOI
Scopus
Web of Science
PubMed
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
Autores
Citação
FRONTIERS IN CARDIOVASCULAR MEDICINE, v.10, article ID 1197408, 9p, 2023
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
IntroductionClassical low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis (LFLG-AS) is an advanced stage of aortic stenosis, which has a poor prognosis with medical treatment and a high operative mortality after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). There is currently a paucity of information regarding the current prognosis of classical LFLG-AS patients undergoing SAVR and the lack of a reliable risk assessment tool for this particular subset of AS patients. The present study aims to assess mortality predictors in a population of classical LFLG-AS patients undergoing SAVR.MethodsThis is a prospective study including 41 consecutive classical LFLG-AS patients (aortic valve area & LE;1.0 cm(2), mean transaortic gradient <40 mmHg, left ventricular ejection fraction <50%). All patients underwent dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE), 3D echocardiography, and T1 mapping cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR). Patients with pseudo-severe aortic stenosis were excluded. Patients were divided into groups according to the median value of the mean transaortic gradient (& LE;25 and >25 mmHg). All-cause, intraprocedural, 30-day, and 1-year mortality rates were evaluated.ResultsAll of the patients had degenerative aortic stenosis, with a median age of 66 (60-73) years; most of the patients were men (83%). The median EuroSCORE II was 2.19% (1.5%-4.78%), and the median STS was 2.19% (1.6%-3.99%). On DSE, 73.2% had flow reserve (FR), i.e., an increase in stroke volume & GE;20% during DSE, with no significant differences between groups. On CMR, late gadolinium enhancement mass was lower in the group with mean transaortic gradient >25 mmHg [2.0 (0.0-8.9) g vs. 8.5 (2.3-15.0) g; p = 0.034), and myocardium extracellular volume (ECV) and indexed ECV were similar between groups. The 30-day and 1-year mortality rates were 14.6% and 43.8%, respectively. The median follow-up was 4.1 (0.3-5.1) years. By multivariate analysis adjusted for FR, only the mean transaortic gradient was an independent predictor of mortality (hazard ratio: 0.923, 95% confidence interval: 0.864-0.986, p = 0.019). A mean transaortic gradient & LE;25 mmHg was associated with higher all-cause mortality rates (log-rank p = 0.038), while there was no difference in mortality regarding FR status (log-rank p = 0.114).ConclusionsIn patients with classical LFLG-AS undergoing SAVR, the mean transaortic gradient was the only independent mortality predictor in patients with LFLG-AS, especially if & LE;25 mmHg. The absence of left ventricular FR had no prognostic impact on long-term outcomes.
Palavras-chave
aortic stenosis, risk prediction, valve surgery, echocardiography, cardiac magnetic resonance
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/54637
Referências
  1. Annabi MS, 2020, J AM HEART ASSOC, V9, DOI 10.1161/JAHA.120.017870
  2. Baumgartner H, 2017, J AM SOC ECHOCARDIOG, V30, P372, DOI [10.1016/j.echo.2017.02.009, 10.1093/ehjci/jew335]
  3. Buchanan KD, 2019, CATHETER CARDIO INTE, V93, P707, DOI 10.1002/ccd.27914
  4. Chin CWL, 2017, JACC-CARDIOVASC IMAG, V10, P1320, DOI 10.1016/j.jcmg.2016.10.007
  5. Clavel MA, 2008, CIRCULATION, V118, pS234, DOI 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.757427
  6. Dahou A, 2018, JACC-CARDIOVASC IMAG, V11, P939, DOI 10.1016/j.jcmg.2017.06.018
  7. DEFILIPPI CR, 1995, AM J CARDIOL, V75, P191, DOI 10.1016/S0002-9149(00)80078-8
  8. Fukui M, 2022, EUR HEART J-CARD IMG, V24, P46, DOI 10.1093/ehjci/jeac089
  9. Lang RM, 2012, EUR HEART J-CARD IMG, V13, P1, DOI 10.1093/ehjci/jer316
  10. Messroghli DR, 2018, J CARDIOVASC MAGN R, V20, DOI [10.1186/s12968-017-0408-9, 10.1186/s12968-017-0389-8]
  11. Monin JL, 2003, CIRCULATION, V108, P319, DOI 10.1161/01.CIR.0000079171.43055.46
  12. Otto CM, 2021, J AM COLL CARDIOL, V77, P450, DOI 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.11.035
  13. Pibarot P, 2012, J AM COLL CARDIOL, V60, P1845, DOI 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.06.051
  14. Quere JP, 2006, CIRCULATION, V113, P1738, DOI 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.568824
  15. Ribeiro HB, 2018, J AM COLL CARDIOL, V71, P1297, DOI 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.01.054
  16. Rosa VEE, 2019, CIRC-CARDIOVASC IMAG, V12, DOI 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.118.008353
  17. Sato K, 2019, J AM HEART ASSOC, V8, DOI 10.1161/JAHA.118.011168
  18. Teske Arco J, 2007, Cardiovasc Ultrasound, V5, P27
  19. Tribouilloy C, 2009, J AM COLL CARDIOL, V53, P1865, DOI 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.02.026
  20. Ueyama H, 2021, JACC-CARDIOVASC INTE, V14, P1481, DOI 10.1016/j.jcin.2021.04.038
  21. Vahanian A, 2022, EUR HEART J, V43, P561, DOI [10.1093/eurheartj/ehab395, 10.1016/j.rec.2022.05.006]
  22. Wynants L, 2015, J CLIN EPIDEMIOL, V68, P1406, DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.02.002

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - FM/MCP
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/InCor
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/11
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/64
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/65
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - ODS/03