Advertisement

Clinical and echocardiographic features of paradoxical low-flow and normal-flow severe aortic stenosis patients with concomitant mitral regurgitation

  • Jinghao Nicholas Ngiam
  • Nicholas Chew
  • Rebecca Teng
  • Jonathan D. Kochav
  • Stephanie M. Kochav
  • Benjamin Yong-Qiang Tan
  • Hui Wen Sim
  • Ching-Hui Sia
  • William K. F. Kong
  • Edgar Lik Wui Tay
  • Tiong-Cheng Yeo
  • Kian-Keong PohEmail author
Original Paper
  • 20 Downloads

Abstract

Mitral regurgitation (MR) coexists in a significant proportion of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS), and portends inferior therapeutic outcomes. In severe AS, MR is thought to contribute to a low-flow state by decreasing forward stroke volume. We investigated concomitant MR on the clinical and echocardiographic features of patients with “paradoxical” low-flow (PLF) and normal-flow (NF) severe AS. Clinical and echocardiographic profiles of 886 consecutive patients with index echocardiographic diagnosis of severe AS (AVA < 1.0 cm2) were analysed retrospectively. All patients had preserved ejection fraction (LVEF  ≥ 50%, n = 645), and were divided into PLF (stroke volume index, SVI < 35 mL/m2) and NF AS. They were then further subdivided based on the presence or absence of moderate-or-severe MR (msMR). A higher prevalence of concomitant msMR was observed in patients with PLF AS (14.9%; n = 33/221) compared to those with NF AS (8.0%; n = 34/424). Concomitant msMR was associated with echocardiographic features of increased diastolic dysfunction in both PLF AS and NF AS patients, as evidenced by increased LA diameter (PLF AS 52.9 ± 12.5 to 43.9 ± 8.9 mm; NF AS 29.6 ± 10.8 to 42.4 ± 8.8 mm; p < 0.001) and increased transmitral E/A ratio (PLF AS 1.26 ± 0.56 to 0.92 ± 0.43; NF AS 1.19 ± 0.63 to 0.94 ± 0.45; p = 0.004). Amongst patients with NF AS, msMR was additionally associated with increased E:e’ ratio (25.5 ± 15.1 vs 19.3 ± 10.8; p = 0.025). Concomitant MR was more common in PLF AS compared to NF. Although possibly related to the MR, patients severe AS and MR appeared to have more severe diastolic dysfunction. Further studies are warranted to evaluate prognosis and guide management.

Keywords

Mitral regurgitation Low-flow Aortic stenosis Diastolic dysfunction 

Notes

Funding

None reported.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical statement

The approval for this study had been granted by the National Healthcare Group Institutional Review Board prior to its conduct. The study therefore had been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments. No patient identifiers were collected, and details that might disclose the identity of the subjects under study should were omitted.

References

  1. 1.
    Sahinarslan A, Vecchio F, MacCarthy P, Dworakowski R, Deshpande R et al (2016) Dynamics of concomitant functional mitral regurgitation in patients with aortic stenosis undergoing TAVI. Acta Cardiol Sin 32(4):477–484PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yu PJ, Mattia A, Cassiere HA, Esposito R, Manetta F et al (2017) Should high risk patients with concomitant severe aortic stenosis and mitral valve disease undergo double valve surgery in the TAVR era? J Cardiothorac Surg 12:123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nombela-Franco L, Ribeiro HB, Urena M et al (2014) Significant mitral regurgitation left untreated at the time of aortic valve replacement: a comprehensive review of a frequent entity in the transcatheter aortic valve replacement era. J Am Coll Cardiol 63:2643–2658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Khawaja MZ, Williams R, Hung J et al (2014) Impact of preprocedural mitral regurgitation upon mortality after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (tavi) for severe aortic stenosis. Heart 100:1799–1803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Takagi H, Umemoto T (2015) All-literature investigation of cardiovascular evidence G. Coexisting mitral regurgitation impairs survival after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Ann Thorac Surg 100:2270–2276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mueller XM, Tevaearai HT, Stumpe F et al (1998) Long-term results of mitral-aortic valve operations. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 115:1298–1309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Litmathe J, Boeken U, Kurt M, Feindt P, Gams E (2006) Predictive risk factors in double-valve replacement (avr and mvr) compared to isolated aortic valve replacement. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 54:459–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nombela-Franco L, Eltchaninoff H, Zahn R et al (2015) Clinical impact and evolution of mitral regurgitation following transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis. Heart 101:1395–1405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goncalves A, Solomon SD (2013) Mitral regurgitation in transcatheter aortic valve replacement: the complexity of multivalvular disease. Circulation 128:2101–2103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Benfari G, Clavel MA, Nistri S, Maffeis C, Vassanelli C et al (2017) Concomitant mitral regurgitation and aortic stenosis: one step further to low-flow preserved ejection fraction aortic stenosis. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jex172 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hachicha Z, Dumesnil JG, Bogaty P et al (2007) Paradoxical low-flow, low-gradient severe aortic stenosis despite preserved ejection fraction is associated with higher afterload and reduced survival. Circulation 115:2856–2864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eleid Mackram F, Paul Sorajja et al (2013) Flow-gradient patterns in severe aortic stenosis with preserved ejection fraction. Circulation 128:1781–1789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tribouilloy C, Rusinaru D, Marechaux S et al (2015) Low-gradient, low-flow severe aortic stenosis with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction: characteristics, outcome, and implications of surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol 65(1):55–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jander N, Minners J, Holme I, Gerdts E, Boman K et al (2011) outcome of patients with low-gradient “severe” aortic stenosis and preserved ejection fraction. Circulation 123(8):887–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Baumgartner H, Hung J, Bermejo J et al (2017) Recommendations of the echocardiographic assessment of aortic valve stenosis: a focused update from the European Association of Cardiovascular imaging and the American Society of Echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 18:254–275Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lang RM, Badano LP, Mor-Avi V et al (2015) Recommendations for cardiac chamber quantification by echocardiography in adults: an update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 16:233–271Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Baumgartner H, Hung J, Bermejo J et al (2009) Echocardiographic assessment of valve stenosis: EAE/ASE recommendations for clinical practice. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 22:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nagueh SF, Smiseth OA, Appleton CP, Byrd BF, Dokainish H et al (2016) Recommendations for the evaluation of left ventricular diastolic function by echocardiography: an update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular imaging. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 29:277–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Toggweiler S, Boone RH, Rodes-Cabau J et al (2012) Transcatheter aortic valve replacement: outcomes of patients with moderate or severe mitral regurgitation. J Am Coll Cardiol 59:2068–2074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mavromatis K, Thourani VH, Stebbins A et al (2017) Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis and mitral regurgitation. Ann Thorac Surg 104:1977–1985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gjertsson P, Caidahl K, Bech-Hanssen O (2005) Left ventricular diastolic dysfunction late after aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis. Am J Cardiol 96:722–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lund O, Erlandsen M (2000) Changes in left ventricular function and mass during serial investigations after valve replacement for aortic stenosis. J Heart Valve Dis 9:583–593PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cayli M, Kanadaşi M, Akpinar O et al (2009) Diastolic function predicts outcome after aortic valve replacement in patients with chronic severe aortic regurgitation. Clin Cardiol 32:E19–E23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Malaisrie SC, McCarthy PM, McGee EC et al (2010) Contemporary perioperative results of isolated aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis. Ann Thorac Surg 89:751–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hachicha Z, Dumesnil JG, Pibarot P (2009) Usefulness of valvuarterial impedance to predict adverse outcome in asymptomatic aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 54:1003–1013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hess OM, Villari B, Karyenbuehl HP (1993) Diastolic dysfunction in aortic stenosis. Circulation 87(5 Suppl):IV73–IV76PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Villari B, Vassalli G, Betocchi S et al (1996) Normalization of left ventricular nonuniformity late after valve replacement for aortic stenosis. Am J Cardiol 78:66–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ngiam JN, Tan BY, Sia CH, Lee GKM, Kong WKF, Chan YH, Poh KK (2017) Comparing characteristics and clinical and echocardiographic outcomes in low-flow vs normal-flow severe aortic stenosis with preserved ejection fraction in an Asian population. Echocardiography 34(5):638–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Romero J, Chavez P, Goodman-Meza D et al (2014) Outcomes in patients with various forms of aortic stenosis including those with low-flow low-gradient normal and low ejection fraction. Am J Cardiol 114(7):1069–1074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Clavel MA, Fuchs C, Burwash IG et al (2008) Predictors of outcomes in low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis results of the multicenter TOPAS study. Circulation 118(Suppl 1):S234–S242CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jinghao Nicholas Ngiam
    • 1
  • Nicholas Chew
    • 1
  • Rebecca Teng
    • 2
  • Jonathan D. Kochav
    • 3
  • Stephanie M. Kochav
    • 3
  • Benjamin Yong-Qiang Tan
    • 1
  • Hui Wen Sim
    • 4
  • Ching-Hui Sia
    • 4
  • William K. F. Kong
    • 2
    • 4
  • Edgar Lik Wui Tay
    • 2
    • 4
  • Tiong-Cheng Yeo
    • 2
    • 4
  • Kian-Keong Poh
    • 2
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of MedicineNational University Health SystemSingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.Yong Loo Lin School of MedicineNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore
  3. 3.Department of CardiologyMassachusetts General HospitalBostonUSA
  4. 4.Department of Cardiology, National University Heart CentreNational University Health SystemSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations