Advertisement

Current Cardiology Reports

, 21:94 | Cite as

Imaging Strategies for Evaluating Low-Flow, Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis with Reduced and Preserved Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction

  • Krishna Alluri
  • Blase A. Carabello
  • Rajasekhar NekkantiEmail author
Echocardiography (JM Gardin and AH Waller, Section Editors)
  • 71 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Echocardiography

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Aortic stenosis (AS) is one of the most common valvular heart diseases, and aortic valve replacement (AVR) provides both symptomatic and survival benefit in symptomatic severe AS patients. The purpose of this review is to discuss low-flow low-gradient AS which is still a challenging diagnostic entity.

Recent Findings

Thirty–forty percent of patients with AS have low flow which makes it difficult to differentiate truly severe AS that benefits from AVR compared to pseudo-severe AS which is currently managed conservatively. Patients with low-flow low-gradient AS (LF-LG AS) include those with reduced left ventricular systolic function (classical LF-LG AS) and those with preserved left ventricular systolic function (paradoxical LF-LG AS). Low-dose dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) helps to identify truly severe stenosis in patients with classical LF-LG AS. Aortic valve calcium scoring with multidetector computed tomography plays a major role in patients with paradoxical LF-LG AS and also among classical LF-LG AS patients who have reduced contractile reserve on DSE.

Summary

This article will provide an overview of imaging strategies for evaluating LF-LG AS with reduced and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction.

Keywords

Aortic stenosis Left ventricular ejection fraction Dobutamine stress Echocardiography Multidetector computed tomography Aortic valve replacement 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Krishna Alluri, Blase A. Carabello, and Rajasekhar Nekkanti declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Eveborn GW, Schirmer H, Heggelund G, Lunde P, Rasmussen K. The evolving epidemiology of valvular aortic stenosis. The Tromso study. Heart. 2013;99(6):396–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Otto CM, Burwash IG, Legget ME, Munt BI, Fujioka M, Healy NL, et al. Prospective study of asymptomatic valvular aortic stenosis. Clinical, echocardiographic, and exercise predictors of outcome. Circulation. 1997;95(9):2262–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pellikka PA, Sarano ME, Nishimura RA, Malouf JF, Bailey KR, Scott CG, et al. Outcome of 622 adults with asymptomatic, hemodynamically significant aortic stenosis during prolonged follow-up. Circulation. 2005;111(24):3290–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nishimura RA, et al. 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2014;129(23):e521–643.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baumgartner H, Falk V, Bax JJ, de Bonis M, Hamm C, Holm PJ, et al. 2017 ESC/EACTS guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J. 2017;38(36):2739–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schwarz F, Baumann P, Manthey J, Hoffmann M, Schuler G, Mehmel HC, et al. The effect of aortic valve replacement on survival. Circulation. 1982;66(5):1105–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack M, Miller DC, Moses JW, Svensson LG, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(17):1597–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kvidal P, Bergström PR, Hörte LG, Ståhle E. Observed and relative survival after aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;35(3):747–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clavel MA, Fuchs C, Burwash IG, Mundigler G, Dumesnil JG, Baumgartner H, et al. Predictors of outcomes in low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis: results of the multicenter TOPAS Study. Circulation. 2008;118(14 Suppl):S234–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Connolly HM, Oh JK, Schaff HV, Roger VL, Osborn SL, Hodge DO, et al. Severe aortic stenosis with low transvalvular gradient and severe left ventricular dysfunction: result of aortic valve replacement in 52 patients. Circulation. 2000;101(16):1940–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Carabello BA, Green LH, Grossman W, Cohn LH, Koster JK, Collins JJ Jr. Hemodynamic determinants of prognosis of aortic valve replacement in critical aortic stenosis and advanced congestive heart failure. Circulation. 1980;62(1):42–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hachicha Z, Dumesnil JG, Bogaty P, Pibarot P. Paradoxical low-flow, low-gradient severe aortic stenosis despite preserved ejection fraction is associated with higher afterload and reduced survival. Circulation. 2007;115(22):2856–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dumesnil JG, Pibarot P, Carabello B. Paradoxical low flow and/or low gradient severe aortic stenosis despite preserved left ventricular ejection fraction: implications for diagnosis and treatment. Eur Heart J. 2010;31(3):281–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Barasch E, et al. Severe isolated aortic stenosis with normal left ventricular systolic function and low transvalvular gradients: pathophysiologic and prognostic insights. J Heart Valve Dis. 2008;17(1):81–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis with normal and depressed left ventricular ejection fraction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(19):1845–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tandon A, Grayburn PA. Imaging of low-gradient severe aortic stenosis. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;6(2):184–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Baumgartner H, et al. Echocardiographic assessment of valve stenosis: EAE/ASE recommendations for clinical practice. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2009;22(1):1–23 quiz 101-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Monin JL, Quéré JP, Monchi M, Petit H́̀, Baleynaud S, Chauvel C, et al. Low-gradient aortic stenosis: operative risk stratification and predictors for long-term outcome: a multicenter study using dobutamine stress hemodynamics. Circulation. 2003;108(3):319–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gaspar T, Adawi S, Sachner R, Asmer I, Ganaeem M, Rubinshtein R, et al. Three-dimensional imaging of the left ventricular outflow tract: impact on aortic valve area estimation by the continuity equation. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2012;25(7):749–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Leipsic J, et al. Multidetector computed tomography in transcatheter aortic valve implantation. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011;4(4):416–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    •• Thaden JJ, et al. Doppler imaging in aortic stenosis: the importance of the nonapical imaging windows to determine severity in a contemporary cohort. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015;28(7):780–5 Findings from this study confirm routine Doppler interrogation from multiple imaging windows is critical to accurately determine the severity of AS. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Oh JK, Taliercio CP, Holmes DR Jr, Reeder GS, Bailey KR, Seward JB, et al. Prediction of the severity of aortic stenosis by Doppler aortic valve area determination: prospective Doppler-catheterization correlation in 100 patients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1988;11(6):1227–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zoghbi WA. Velocity acceleration in aortic stenosis revisited. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8(7):776–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Spitzer E, van Mieghem NM, Pibarot P, Hahn RT, Kodali S, Maurer MS, et al. Rationale and design of the transcatheter aortic valve replacement to UNload the left ventricle in patients with ADvanced heart failure (TAVR UNLOAD) trial. Am Heart J. 2016;182:80–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Takeda S, Rimington H, Chambers J. The relation between transaortic pressure difference and flow during dobutamine stress echocardiography in patients with aortic stenosis. Heart. 1999;82(1):11–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Levy F, Laurent M, Monin JL, Maillet JM, Pasquet A, le Tourneau T, et al. Aortic valve replacement for low-flow/low-gradient aortic stenosis operative risk stratification and long-term outcome: a European multicenter study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;51(15):1466–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Quere JP, Monin JL, Levy F, Petit H́̀, Baleynaud S, Chauvel C, et al. Influence of preoperative left ventricular contractile reserve on postoperative ejection fraction in low-gradient aortic stenosis. Circulation. 2006;113(14):1738–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tribouilloy C, Lévy F, Rusinaru D, Guéret P, Petit-Eisenmann H, Baleynaud S, et al. Outcome after aortic valve replacement for low-flow/low-gradient aortic stenosis without contractile reserve on dobutamine stress echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53(20):1865–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    • Maes F, et al. Outcomes from transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis and left ventricular ejection fraction less than 30%: a substudy from the TOPAS-TAVI Registry. JAMA Cardiol. 2019;4(1):64–70 Results from this study support the role of TAVR for LF-LG AS, irrespective of the severity of left ventricular dysfunction and contractile reserve on dobutamine stress echocardiography. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Buchanan KD, Rogers T, Steinvil A, Koifman E, Xu L, Torguson R, et al. Role of contractile reserve as a predictor of mortality in low-flow, low-gradient severe aortic stenosis following transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;93(4):707–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cueff C, Serfaty JM, Cimadevilla C, Laissy JP, Himbert D, Tubach F, et al. Measurement of aortic valve calcification using multislice computed tomography: correlation with haemodynamic severity of aortic stenosis and clinical implication for patients with low ejection fraction. Heart. 2011;97(9):721–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Clavel MA, et al. Impact of aortic valve calcification, as measured by MDCT, on survival in patients with aortic stenosis: results of an international registry study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64(12):1202–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zoghbi WA, et al. Recommendations for evaluation of prosthetic valves with echocardiography and doppler ultrasound: a report from the American Society of Echocardiography’s Guidelines and Standards Committee and the Task Force on Prosthetic Valves, developed in conjunction with the American College of Cardiology Cardiovascular Imaging Committee, Cardiac Imaging Committee of the American Heart Association, the European Association of Echocardiography, a registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology, the Japanese Society of Echocardiography and the Canadian Society of Echocardiography, endorsed by the American College of Cardiology Foundation, American Heart Association, European Association of Echocardiography, a registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology, the Japanese Society of Echocardiography, and Canadian Society of Echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2009;22(9):975–1014 quiz 1082–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kamimura D, Hans S, Suzuki T, Fox ER, Hall ME, Musani SK, et al. Delayed time to peak velocity is useful for detecting severe aortic stenosis. J Am Heart Assoc. 2016;5(10).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ringle Griguer A, Tribouilloy C, Truffier A, Castel AL, Delelis F, Levy F, et al. Clinical significance of ejection dynamics parameters in patients with aortic stenosis: an outcome study. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2018;31(5):551–560 e2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mehrotra P, Jansen K, Flynn AW, Tan TC, Elmariah S, Picard MH, et al. Differential left ventricular remodelling and longitudinal function distinguishes low flow from normal-flow preserved ejection fraction low-gradient severe aortic stenosis. Eur Heart J. 2013;34(25):1906–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Eleid MF, Nishimura RA, Sorajja P, Borlaug BA. Systemic hypertension in low-gradient severe aortic stenosis with preserved ejection fraction. Circulation. 2013;128(12):1349–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kadem L, et al. Impact of systemic hypertension on the assessment of aortic stenosis. Heart. 2005;91(3):354–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Clavel MA, et al. Stress echocardiography to assess stenosis severity and predict outcome in patients with paradoxical low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis and preserved LVEF. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;6(2):175–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Clavel MA, Messika-Zeitoun D, Pibarot P, Aggarwal SR, Malouf J, Araoz PA, et al. The complex nature of discordant severe calcified aortic valve disease grading: new insights from combined Doppler echocardiographic and computed tomographic study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62(24):2329–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Dayan V, Vignolo G, Magne J, Clavel MA, Mohty D, Pibarot P. Outcome and impact of aortic valve replacement in patients with preserved LVEF and low-gradient aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;66(23):2594–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ozkan A, Hachamovitch R, Kapadia SR, Tuzcu EM, Marwick TH. Impact of aortic valve replacement on outcome of symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis with low gradient and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. Circulation. 2013;128(6):622–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Herrmann HC, Pibarot P, Hueter I, Gertz ZM, Stewart WJ, Kapadia S, et al. Predictors of mortality and outcomes of therapy in low-flow severe aortic stenosis: a Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trial analysis. Circulation. 2013;127(23):2316–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Krishna Alluri
    • 1
  • Blase A. Carabello
    • 1
  • Rajasekhar Nekkanti
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Cardiovascular MedicineVidant Medical Center/East Carolina UniversityGreenvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations