Abstract
Background
Recently, the energy loss index (ELI) has been proposed as a new functional index to assess the severity of aortic stenosis (AS). The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of the ELI on left ventricular mass (LVM) regression in patients after aortic valve replacement (AVR) with mechanical valves.
Methods
A total of 30 patients with severe AS who underwent AVR with mechanical valves was studied. Echocardiography was performed to measure the LVM before AVR (pre-LVM) (n = 30) and repeated 12 months later (post-LVM) (n = 19). The ELI was calculated as [effective orifice area (EOA) × aortic cross sectional area]/(aortic cross sectional area − EOA) divided by the body surface area. The LVM regression rate (%) was calculated as 100 × (post-LVM − pre-LVM)/(pre-LVM). A cardiac event was defined as a composite of cardiac death and heart failure requiring hospitalization.
Results
LVM regressed significantly (245.1 ± 84.3 to 173.4 ± 62.6 g, P < 0.01) at 12 months after AVR. The LVM regression rate negatively correlated with the ELI (R = −0.67, P < 0.01). By receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, ELI <1.12 cm2/m2 predicted smaller (<−30.0 %) LVM regression rates (area under the curve = 0.825; P = 0.030). Patients with ELI <1.12 cm2/m2 had significantly lower cardiac event-free survival.
Conclusion
The ELI as well as the EOA index (EOAI) could predict LVM regression after AVR with mechanical valves. Whether the ELI is a stronger predictor of clinical events than EOAI is still unclear, and further large-scale study is necessary to elucidate the clinical impact of the ELI in patients with AVR.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Prosthesis–patient mismatch (PPM) was first described as a condition where the effective orifice area (EOA) of a normally functioning heart valve prosthesis is too small in relation to the patient’s body size, which results in high transvalvular pressure gradients [1]. Patients with PPM have worse functional class and exercise capacity and reduced regression of left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy after aortic valve replacement (AVR) compared with patients without PPM [2, 3]. Furthermore, PPM has been associated with increased incidence of late cardiac events [4–8].
Although the EOA derived from the continuity equation or direct planimetry of the stenotic aortic valve orifice were used to assess the severity of the aortic stenosis (AS) [9, 10], overestimation of the EOA could occur in the clinical setting because of the pressure recovery phenomenon [11, 12]. The Doppler-derived energy loss coefficient (ELCo) or energy loss index (ELI) has been proposed as a functional index to assess the severity of AS [11–13]. Although the ELCo or ELI may be related to left ventricular mass (LVM) regression after AVR with bioprosthetic valves [14], the impact of the ELI on LVM regression and clinical event after AVR with mechanical valves in patients with AS is unknown. Therefore, the objective of this study was to investigate the impact of the ELI on LVM regression in patients who underwent AVR with mechanical valves.
Methods
Patients
This study population included consecutive 30 patients (aged 62.8 ± 7.7 years; 15 men) with severe AS who underwent AVR with mechanical valves at our center between March 2002 and December 2010.
Indications for AVR were symptomatic severe AS (n = 20), asymptomatic severe AS with a high likelihood of rapid progression (n = 4), asymptomatic severe AS undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG, n = 3), and extremely severe AS (peak aortic jet velocity >5.0 m/s, n = 3).
The prosthetic valves used in this study were the ATS (ATS Medical, Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) in 13 patients (valve size 19 mm, n = 4; valve size 21 mm, n = 2; valve size 23 mm, n = 6; valve size 25 mm, n = 1), the ATS AP (ATS Medical, Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) in 3 patients (valve size 18 mm, n = 2; valve size 24 mm, n = 1), the St. Jude Medical Standard (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) in 3 patients (valve size 19 mm, n = 2; valve size 21 mm, n = 1), the St. Jude Medical Regent in 3 patients (valve size 19 mm, n = 2; valve size 21 mm, n = 1), the MCRI On-X valve (Medical Carbon Research Institute, LLC, Austin, TX, USA) in 3 patients (valve size 19 mm, n = 2; valve size 23 mm, n = 1), the Edwards Mira (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) in 1 patient (valve size 19 mm), and the Carbomedics Standard (Sulzer Carbomedics, Austin, TX, USA) in 4 patients (valve size 19 mm, n = 2; valve size 21 mm, n = 2). The study protocol was approved by the ethics committee of Kawasaki Medical School, and informed consent was given by each patient.
The presence of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, or diabetes mellitus was determined using the following criteria. Hypertension was defined as blood pressure >140/90 mmHg or current use of antihypertensive medication. Hyperlipidemia was defined as total cholesterol level >220 mg/dL or triglyceride level >150 mg/dL or current use of lipid lowering medication. Diabetes mellitus was defined as fasting plasma glucose level >126 mg/dL, plasma glucose level (at any time) >200 mg/dL, or current use of anti-diabetic medication. We excluded patients with systolic LV dysfunction before or after AVR (LV ejection fraction <30 %).
Echocardiography
Echocardiographic examinations were performed before, 1 month, and 12 months after AVR. Echocardiographic parameters included the LV dimension, LV wall thickness, LV ejection fraction, and LVM. The LV dimension and LV wall thickness were measured using the two-dimensional method, and the LV ejection fraction was measured using the modified Simpson’s method [15]. The LVM was calculated using the method of Devereux et al. [16]. Changes in the LVM were assessed using both absolute LVM regression and the LVM regression rate. Absolute LVM regression (g) was calculated as post-LVM − pre-LVM. The LVM regression rate (%) was calculated as 100 × (post-LVM − pre-LVM)/pre-LVM [4]. The transvalvular gradients were measured using a continuous-wave Doppler technique. The pre-operative EOA was calculated according to the continuity equation. The EOA index (EOAI) was calculated as the EOA divided by the body surface area (BSA). The aortic diameter was measured at the level of the sinotubular junction [17]. The aortic cross sectional area (AA) was calculated as 3.14 × (aortic diameter/2)2. The ELCo was calculated as [EOA − AA]/(AA − EOA) [12, 13, 18]. The ELI was calculated as the ELCo divided by the BSA. Known EOA values for each prosthetic valve were used to calculate the ELCo [4, 12, 19–21]. The change in the EOAI (ΔEOAI) (cm2/m2) after AVR was calculated as post-operative EOAI − pre-operative EOAI. The change in the ELI (ΔELI) (cm2/m2) was calculated as post-operative ELI − pre-operative ELI [22].
A cardiac event was defined as a composite of cardiac death and heart failure requiring hospitalization.
Statistical methods
All data were statistically analyzed using the SPSS statistical software (version 20.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation and compared using a two-tailed paired Student’s t-test. Comparison between the two main groups was made with Fisher’s exact tests for categorical variables. For continuous variables, analysis of variance (ANOVA) with post hoc analysis using the Scheffé test was used to differentiate among the 3 groups of data. The relationship between the LVM regression rate and the EOAI or the ELI was evaluated by means of simple linear regression analysis to calculate r (Pearson’s correlation coefficient). Using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves (i.e., plots of sensitivity vs. 1− specificity), we defined the best cutoff value of the ELI for detecting patients with higher LVM regression rates after AVR and survival and freedom from cardiac events. A P value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.
Results
The baseline clinical characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Twenty-six of 30 patents had symptoms related to severe AS. Echocardiographic findings before, 1 month, and 12 months after AVR are shown on Table 2. Eleven of 30 patients had no echocardiographic data at 12 months because they were followed at other hospitals without routine echocardiographic examinations. The LV diastolic diameter, interventricular septal thickness, posterior wall thickness, and LVM significantly decreased. The mean values of absolute LVM regression and the LVM regression rate from before AVR to 12 months after AVR were −76.8 ± 37.9 g and −30.0 ± 9.26 %, respectively. After AVR, the peak aortic velocity and mean pressure gradient decreased significantly (Table 3).
There were no significant correlations between the peak aortic velocity after AVR and absolute LVM regression (R = −0.411, P = 0.080) or the LVM regression rate (R = −0.222, P = 0.360). On the other hand, negative correlations were observed between the post-operative EOAI and absolute LVM regression (R = −0.543, P = 0.016) or the LVM regression rate (R = −0.658, P = 0.002) (Fig. 1). Similarly, the post-operative ELI correlated negatively with absolute LVM regression (R = −0.511, P = 0.026) or the LVM regression rate (R = −0.670, P = 0.002) (Fig. 2). The LVM regression rate correlated negatively with both the ΔEOAI (R = −0.601, P = 0.007) and ΔELI (R = −0.655, P = 0.002) (Fig. 3). Similarly, the LVM regression rate from 1 to 12 months after AVR correlated negatively with both the ΔEOAI (R = −0.555, P = 0.026) and ΔELI (R = –0.574, P = 0.020) (Fig. 4). The mean value of the LVM regression rate was 30.0 %. Clinical characteristics and echocardiographic indices were compared between patients with smaller (<−30.0 %) and larger (≥−30.0 %) LVM regression rate (Tables 4, 5). There were no significant differences in the clinical characteristics between patients with smaller and larger LVM regression rates. Similarly, the pre-AVR echocardiographic indices did not differ between the 2 groups. On the other hand, the larger LVM regression group had significantly lower peak aortic velocity and mean pressure gradient and significantly larger ELI after AVR. By the ROC curve analysis, post-operative EOAI <0.91 cm2/m2 or post-operative ELI <1.12 cm2/m2 predicted smaller LVM regression rate (EOAI: area under curve = 0.799; P = 0.011 and ELI: area under curve = 0.825; P = 0.030, respectively).
During the follow-up period (median 5.2 years), patients with post-operative EOAI <0.91 cm2/m2 or post-operative ELI <1.12 cm2/m2 had significantly higher incidence of cardiac events (2 cardiac deaths and 1 heart failure) than patients with post-operative EOAI ≥0.91 cm2/m2 or post-operative ELI <1.12 cm2/m2. By Kaplan–Meier analysis, cardiac event-free survival was significantly lower in patients with post-operative EOAI <0.91 cm2/m2 or post-operative ELI <1.12 cm2/m2 than in patients with post-operative EOAI ≥0.91 cm2/m2 or post-operative ELI <1.12 cm2/m2 (Figs. 5, 6).
Discussion
The main findings of this study were that: (1) the LVM regression rate was negatively and significantly correlated with the ELI, (2) ELI <1.12 cm2/m2 predicted smaller LVM regression rate (<−30.0 %) after AVR, and (3) patients with ELI <1.12 cm2/m2 had a higher incidence of cardiac events after AVR.
In our daily clinical settings, the peak transaortic flow velocity, mean pressure gradient, as well as the EOA derived from the continuity equation method are used to assess the severity of AS [23]. However, these measurements could be overestimated because of the pressure recovery phenomenon [11–13]. The concept of the pressure recovery phenomenon is based on fluid mechanics theory, showing that static pressure downstream of the stenosis could be increased or recovered because of the reconversion of kinetic energy into potential energy. Therefore, the peak or mean pressure gradient calculated from the maximal Doppler flow velocity could overestimate the true pressure gradient through the stenotic orifice. Recently, the ELCo or ELI has been proposed as a new Doppler-derived index to represent the functional severity of AS similar to the catheter-derived aortic valve area [11, 13, 18]. Previous studies have shown that the EOA in patients with AS can be corrected as the ELCo using the size of the ascending aorta [12, 13]. Several studies have documented that the Doppler-derived ELCo (or ELI) correlated better with the catheter-derived aortic valve area than the EOA (or EOAI) [11–13]. Interestingly, previous studies demonstrated that substantial numbers of patients who were initially diagnosed as severe AS based on the EOA may be re-categorized as moderate AS based on the ELCo [11, 24].
Pressure recovery may affect the assessment of the transprosthetic valvular pressure gradient, resulting in overestimation of the severity of prosthetic valvular stenosis [25, 26]. Aljassim et al. [27] reported that, even in patients with aortic prosthetic valves, the overestimation of the Doppler-derived indices can be predicted and corrected using the validated equation to calculate the ELCo in AS. Furthermore, our preliminary observation has shown that the ELCo predicts LVM regression in patients after AVR using bioprosthetic valves [14]. Because mechanical prosthetic valves have more complex orifice geometry as compared with bioprosthetic valves, it has not been well investigated whether the ELCo/ELI predicts LVM regression as well as prognosis. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report to elucidate the significant relationship between the ELI and LVM regression after AVR with mechanical valves. In combination with previous reports and our present results, the ELI could be used as a functional index to assess LV pressure overload even after AVR and possibly be used as an index for predicting LVM regression after AVR with prosthetic valves [5, 11]. Although the LVM could be related to the severity of AS before AVR, indices of AS severity did not predict LVM regression after AVR, probably because AVR itself dramatically changes the severity of AS and, thus, pressure overload to the LV.
PPM is present when the inserted prosthetic valve is too small relative to the patient’s body size. PPM, defined as an EOAI ≤0.8 to 0.9 cm2/m2, has been shown to predict adverse outcomes [3–5, 7, 8, 14, 19, 22]. A recent meta-analysis of 34 observational studies including 27,186 patients showed a significant reduction in the overall and cardiac-related long-term survival for patients with PPM after AVR [28]. Theoretically, ELI the reflects LV pressure overload better than the EOAI.
In this study, 9 patients were diagnosed as classical PPM (defined as EOAI <0.85 cm2/m2). In 7 of 9 patients with EOAI <0.85 cm2/m2, the ELI was ≥0.85 cm2/m2. The LV mass regression after AVR was numerically greater in patients with ELI ≥0.85 cm2/m2 than in patients with ELI <0.85 cm2/m2 (−30.9 ± 9.2 vs. −22.2 ± 7.4 %), although the difference could not be statistically tested because of the small sample size. However, impact of the ELI on clinical events after AVR with mechanical valves has not yet been clarified. Although ELI <1.12 cm2/m2 had more cardiac events after AVR in our present study, it is still inconclusive as to whether the ELI is a stronger predictor of cardiac events than the EOAI because of the small sample size and relatively lower events rates in our current study population.
Limitations
The main limitation of this study is that this is a retrospective, single-center study with a small sample size. As mentioned in the discussion, the impact of the ELI on the clinical outcome might be affected by possible selection bias. In fact, 37 % of our current study population comprised chronic renal failure patients on hemodialysis, who were known to have a very high risk for operative and late mortality [29]. Therefore, this study may be underpowered to be generalized to all AS patients.
Another limitation of this study is the possible change in aortic diameter after AVR. Botzenhardt et al. [30] reported that aortic diameters decreased after removal of the diseased valve. Therefore, changes in aortic diameter after AVR might have affected the results. Different kinds of mechanical prosthetic valves have their own flow property, although all valves analyzed in this study were bi-leaflet mechanical valves. Therefore, these differences in the prosthetic valve type might have affected the results of our study.
Conclusions
The energy loss index (ELI) as well as the effective orifice area index (EOAI) could predict left ventricular mass (LVM) regression after aortic valve replacement (AVR) with mechanical valves. Whether the ELI is a stronger predictor of clinical events than the EOAI is still unclear, and further large-scale study is necessary to elucidate the clinical impact of the ELI in patients with AVR.
References
Rahimtoola SH. The problem of valve prosthesis–patient mismatch. Circulation. 1978;58:20–4.
Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Prosthesis–patient mismatch: definition, clinical impact, and prevention. Heart. 2006;92:1022–9.
Mohty D, Malouf JF, Girard SE, et al. Impact of prosthesis–patient mismatch on long-term survival in patients with small St Jude Medical mechanical prostheses in the aortic position. Circulation. 2006;113:420–6.
Kato Y, Suehiro S, Shibata T, et al. Impact of valve prosthesis–patient mismatch on long-term survival and left ventricular mass regression after aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis. J Card Surg. 2007;22:314–9.
Blais C, Dumesnil JG, Baillot R, et al. Impact of valve prosthesis–patient mismatch on short-term mortality after aortic valve replacement. Circulation. 2003;108:983–8.
Walther T, Rastan A, Falk V, et al. Patient prosthesis mismatch affects short- and long-term outcomes after aortic valve replacement. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2006;30:15–9.
Tasca G, Mhagna Z, Perotti S, et al. Impact of prosthesis–patient mismatch on cardiac events and midterm mortality after aortic valve replacement in patients with pure aortic stenosis. Circulation. 2006;113:570–6.
Ruel M, Rubens FD, Masters RG, et al. Late incidence and predictors of persistent or recurrent heart failure in patients with aortic prosthetic valves. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2004;127:149–59.
Oh JK, Taliercio CP, Holmes DR Jr, 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;11:1227–34.
Okura H, Yoshida K, Hozumi T, et al. Planimetry and transthoracic two-dimensional echocardiography in noninvasive assessment of aortic valve area in patients with valvular aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997;30:753–9.
Kume T, Okura H, Kawamoto T, et al. Clinical implication of energy loss coefficient in patients with severe aortic stenosis diagnosed by Doppler echocardiography. Circ J. 2008;72:1265–9.
Garcia D, Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG, et al. Assessment of aortic valve stenosis severity: a new index based on the energy loss concept. Circulation. 2000;101:765–71.
Garcia D, Dumesnil JG, Durand LG, et al. Discrepancies between catheter and Doppler estimates of valve effective orifice area can be predicted from the pressure recovery phenomenon: practical implications with regard to quantification of aortic stenosis severity. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;41:435–42.
Kume T, Okura H, Kawamoto T, et al. Impact of energy loss coefficient on left ventricular mass regression in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement: preliminary observation. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2009;22:454–7.
Lang RM, Bierig M, Devereux RB, et al. Recommendations for chamber quantification: a report from the American Society of Echocardiography’s Guidelines and Standards Committee and the Chamber Quantification Writing Group, developed in conjunction with the European Association of Echocardiography, a branch of the European Society of Cardiology. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2005;18:1440–63.
Devereux RB, Alonso DR, Lutas EM, et al. Echocardiographic assessment of left ventricular hypertrophy: comparison to necropsy findings. Am J Cardiol. 1986;57:450–8.
Pibarot P, Honos GN, Durand LG, et al. The effect of prosthesis–patient mismatch on aortic bioprosthetic valve hemodynamic performance and patient clinical status. Can J Cardiol. 1996;12:379–87.
Razzolini R, Manica A, Tarantini G, et al. Discrepancies between catheter and Doppler estimates of aortic stenosis: the role of pressure recovery evaluated ‘in vivo’. J Heart Valve Dis. 2007;16:225–9.
Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Hemodynamic and clinical impact of prosthesis–patient mismatch in the aortic valve position and its prevention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36:1131–41.
Zoghbi WA, Chambers JB, Dumesnil JG, 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;22:975–1014; quiz 82–4.
Otto CM. Textbook of clinical echocardiography. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier; 2009. p. 326–54.
Tasca G, Brunelli F, Cirillo M, et al. Impact of valve prosthesis–patient mismatch on left ventricular mass regression following aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 2005;79:505–10.
Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Chatterjee K, et al. ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines 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 (writing Committee to Revise the 1998 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease) developed in collaboration with the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists endorsed by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:e1–148.
Bahlmann E, Cramariuc D, Gerdts E, et al. Impact of pressure recovery on echocardiographic assessment of asymptomatic aortic stenosis: a SEAS substudy. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010;3:555–62.
Baumgartner H, Khan S, DeRobertis M, et al. Discrepancies between Doppler and catheter gradients in aortic prosthetic valves in vitro. A manifestation of localized gradients and pressure recovery. Circulation. 1990;82:1467–75.
Vandervoort PM, Greenberg NL, Powell KA, et al. Pressure recovery in bileaflet heart valve prostheses. Localized high velocities and gradients in central and side orifices with implications for Doppler-catheter gradient relation in aortic and mitral position. Circulation. 1995;92:3464–72.
Aljassim O, Svensson G, Houltz E, et al. Doppler-catheter discrepancies in patients with bileaflet mechanical prostheses or bioprostheses in the aortic valve position. Am J Cardiol. 2008;102:1383–9.
Head SJ, Mokhles MM, Osnabrugge RL, et al. The impact of prosthesis–patient mismatch on long-term survival after aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 34 observational studies comprising 27 186 patients with 133 141 patient-years. Eur Heart J. 2012;33:1518–29.
Thourani VH, Keeling WB, Sarin EL, et al. Impact of preoperative renal dysfunction on long-term survival for patients undergoing aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011;91:1798–806; discussion 806–7.
Botzenhardt F, Hoffmann E, Kemkes BM, et al. Determinants of ascending aortic dimensions after aortic valve replacement with a stented bioprosthesis. J Heart Valve Dis. 2007;16:19–26.
Conflict of interest
Terumasa Koyama, Hiroyuki Okura, Teruyoshi Kume, Kenzo Fukuhara, Koichiro Imai, Akihiro Hayashida, Yoji Neishi, Takahiro Kawamoto, Kazuo Tanemoto, and Kiyoshi Yoshida declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.
About this article
Cite this article
Koyama, T., Okura, H., Kume, T. et al. Impact of energy loss index on left ventricular mass regression after aortic valve replacement. J Echocardiogr 12, 51–58 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12574-013-0196-7
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12574-013-0196-7