Advertisement

Role of Rest and Stress Echocardiography in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

  • Quirino Ciampi
  • Fiore Manganelli
  • Bruno Villari
Chapter

Abstract

Rest and stress echocardiography plays a pivotal role in the evaluation of valvular heart disease. In aortic stenosis (AS), rest echocardiographic analysis is characterized by a stepwise integrated approach, starting from aortic valve morphology and followed by transvalvular aortic gradient and aortic valve area (AVA) using continuity equation or planimetric approach. The presence of any of the following three criteria, an AVA <1.0 cm2, a peak velocity ≥4.0 m/s, or a mean gradient ≥40 mmHg, is suggestive of severe AS. Sometimes, we can have an AVA <1 cm2 in the presence of peak velocity <4.0 m/s, or a mean gradient <40 mmHg. In this condition, the reduced transvalvular flow can occur in the presence of left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction, with a reduced LV ejection fraction (LVEF <50%): this pathophysiological condition is known as “classical” low-flow low-gradient AS. On the other hand, the reduced transvalvular flow can occur also with a normal LVEF (>50%): this pathophysiological condition is defined as low-flow low-gradient “paradoxical” AS with preserved LVEF. Stress echocardiography (SE) has an established role in the evaluation of LV contractile reserve in low-flow low-gradient classical AS with reduced LVEF but also in identifying pseudo-severe AS from truly severe AS.

Echocardiographic study plays an important role throughout all stages of the procedure of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). In the selection of the AS patients, detailed characteristics of the aortic valve and accurate sizing of aortic annular dimension should be described. It is also important to evaluate concomitant mitral valve disease, LV function, and the presence of septal hypertrophy that it may be related to severe left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) obstruction. Transesophageal echocardiography may be used during TAVI procedure; however, the need for general anesthesia reduces its use. Immediately after the release of aortic valve prosthesis, echocardiographic evaluation is used to confirm satisfactory positioning and function of the prosthesis but also to exclude acute complications. Echocardiographic follow-up post-TAVI is similar to that of postsurgical aortic valve replacement: particular attention should be used to evaluate the presence of paravalvular leaks. In patients with low-flow low-gradient classical AS without LV contractile reserve, TAVI may provide a good alternative to surgery.

Keywords

Aortic stenosis Echocardiography Stress echocardiography Left ventricular contractile reserve Transcatheter aortic valve implantation 

References

  1. 1.
    Baumgartner H, Hung J, Bermejo J, Chambers JB, Edvardsen T, Goldstein S, Lancellotti P, LeFevre M, Miller F Jr, Otto CM. Recommendations on the echocardiographic assessment of aortic valve stenosis: a focused update from the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging and the American Society of Echocardiography. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017;18:254–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baumgartner H, Falk V, Bax JJ, De Bonis M, Hamm C, Holm PJ, Iung B, Lancellotti P, Lansac E, Rodriguez Muñoz D, Rosenhek R, Sjögren J, Tornos Mas P, Vahanian A, Walther T, Wendler O, Windecker S, Zamorano JL. 2017 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. ESC Scientific Document Group. Eur Heart J. 2017;38:2739–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Roberts WC, Ko JM. Frequency by decades of unicuspid, bicuspid, and tricuspid aortic valves in adults having isolated aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis, with or without associated aortic regurgitation. Circulation. 2005;111:920–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Currie PJ, Seward JB, Reeder GS, Vlietstra RE, Bresnahan DR, Bresnahan JF, et al. Continuous-wave Doppler echocardiographic assessment of severity of calcific aortic stenosis: a simultaneous Doppler-catheter correlative study in 100 adult patients. Circulation. 1985;71:1162–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Smith MD, Kwan OL, DeMaria AN. Value and limitations of continuous-wave Doppler echocardiography in estimating severity of valvular stenosis. JAMA. 1986;255:3145–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baumgartner H, Kratzer H, Helmreich G, Kuehn P. Determination of aortic valve area by Doppler echocardiography using the continuity equation: a critical evaluation. Cardiology. 1990;77:101–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Otto CM, Pearlman AS, Comess KA, et al. Determination of the stenotic aortic valve area in adults using Doppler echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1986;7:509–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rosenhek R, Klaar U, Schemper M, et al. Mild and moderate aortic stenosis. Natural history and risk stratification by echocardiography. Eur Heart J. 2004;25:199–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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;25:749–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Aortic stenosis suspected to be severe despite low gradients. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;7:545–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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;31:281–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lancellotti P, Magne J. Valvuloarterial impedance in aortic stenosis: look at the load, but do not forget the flow. Eur J Echocardiogr. 2011;12:354–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Clavel M-A, Burwash IG, Mundigler G, Dumesnil JG, Baumgartner H, Bergler- Klein J, et al. Validation of conventional and simplified methods to calculate projected valve area at normal flow rate in patients with low flow, low gradient aortic stenosis: the multicenter TOPAS (True or Pseudo Severe Aortic Stenosis) study. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2010;23:380–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zamorano JL, Badano LP, Bruce C, Chan KL, Goncalves A, Hahn RT, Keane MG, La Canna G, Monaghan MJ, Nihoyannopoulos P, Silvestry FE, Vanoverschelde JL, Gillam LD. EAE/ASE recommendations for the use of echocardiography in new transcatheter interventions for valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J. 2011;32:2189–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    DeMarco DC, Monaghan MJ. The role of echocardiography in transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Interv Cardiol. 2014;6:547–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moss RR, Ivens E, Pasupati S, Humphries K, Thompson CR, Munt B, et al. Role of echocardiography in percutaneous aortic valve implantation. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2008;1:15–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wijesinghe N, Ye J, Rodés-Cabau J, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv. 2010;3:1122–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Himbert D, Pontnau F, Messika-Zeitoun D, et al. Feasibility and outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in high-risk patient with stenotic bicuspid aortic valves. Am J Cardiol. 2012;110:877–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Moss RR, Ivens E, Pasupati S, et al. Role of echocardiography in percutaneous valve intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2008;1:15–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Smith LA, Dworakowski R, Bhan A, et al. Real-time three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography adds value to transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2013;26:359–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Messika-Zeitoun D, Serfaty JM, Brochet E, Ducrocq G, Lepage L, Detaint D, et al. Multimodal assessment of the aortic annulus diameter: implications for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:186–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chambers JB, Garbi M, Nieman K, Myerson S, Pierard LA, Habib G, Zamorano JL, Edvardsen T, Lancellotti P. This document was reviewed by members of the 2014—16 EACVI Scientific Documents Committee:, Delgado V, Cosyns B, Donal E, Dulgheru R, Galderisi M, Lombardi M, Muraru D, Kauffmann P, Cardim N, Haugaa K, Rosenhek R. Appropriateness criteria for the use of cardiovascular imaging in heart valve disease in adults: a European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging report of literature review and current practice. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017;18:489–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bhattacharyya S, Chehab O, Khattar R, Lloyd G, Senior R. Stress echocardiography in clinical practice: a United Kingdom National Health Service Survey on behalf of the British Society of Echocardiography. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;15:158–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lancellotti P, Pellikka PA, Budts W, Chaudhry FA, Donal E, Dulgheru R, Edvardsen T, Garbi M, Ha JW, Kane GC, Kreeger J, Mertens L, Pibarot P, Picano E, Ryan T, Tsutsui JM, Varga A. The clinical use of stress echocardiography in non-ischaemic heart disease: recommendations from the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging and the American Society of Echocardiography. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;17:1191–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Picano E, Pibarot P, Lancellotti P, Monin JL, Bonow RO. The emerging role of exercise testing and stress echocardiography in valvular heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:2251–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Picano E, Pellikka PA. Stress echo applications beyond coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J. 2014;35:1033–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nishimura RA, Grantham JA, Connolly HM, Schaff HV, Higano ST, Holmes DR Jr. Low-output, low-gradient aortic stenosis in patients with depressed left ventricular systolic function: the clinical utility of the dobutamine challenge in the catheterization laboratory. Circulation. 2002;106:809–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Monin JL, Monchi M, Gest V, Duval-Moulin AM, Dubois-Rande JL, Gueret P. Aortic stenosis with severe left ventricular dysfunction and low transvalvular pressure gradients: risk stratification by low dose dobutamine echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;37:2101–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Monin JL, Quere JP, Monchi M, et al. Low-gradient aortic stenosis: operative risk stratification and predictors for long-term outcome: a multicenter study using dobutamine stress hemodynamics. Circulation. 2003;108:319–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cikes M, Solomon SD. Beyond ejection fraction: an integrative approach for assessment of cardiac structure and function in heart failure. Eur Heart J. 2016;37:1642–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bombardini T, Costantino MF, Sicari R, Ciampi Q, Pratali L, Picano E. End-systolic elastance and ventricular-arterial coupling reserve predict cardiac events in patients with negative stress echocardiography. Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:235194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bombardini T, Gherardi S, Marraccini P, Schlueter MC, Sicari R, Picano E. The incremental diagnostic value of coronary flow reserve and left ventricular elastance during high-dose dipyridamole stress echocardiography in patients with normal wall motion at rest. Int J Cardiol. 2013;168:1683–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Grosu A, Bombardini T, Senni M, Duino V, Gori M, Picano E. End-systolic pressure/volume relationship during dobutamine stress echo: a prognostically useful non-invasive index of left ventricular contractility. Eur Heart J. 2005;26:2404–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cortigiani L, Huqi A, Ciampi Q, Bombardini T, Picano E. The prognostic value of triple functional assessment vasodilator stress echocardiography in diabetic patients: integration of wall motion, coronary flow velocity and left ventricular contractile reserve in a single test. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2018;31:692-701.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Picano E, Ciampi Q, Citro R, D’Aandrea A, Scali MC, Cortigiani L, Olivotto I, Mori F, Galderisi M, Costantino MF, Pratali L, Di Salvo G, Bossone E, Ferrara F, Gargani L, Rigo F, Gaibazzi N, Limongelli G, Pacileo G, Andreassi MG, Pinamonti B, Massa L, Torres MA, Miglioranza MH, Daros CB, de Castro E Silva Pretto JL, Beleslin B, Djordjevic-Dikic A, Varga A, Palinkas A, Agoston G, Gregori D, Trambaiolo P, Severino S, Arystan A, Paterni M, Carpeggiani C, Colonna P. Stress echo 2020: the international stress echo study in ischemic and non-ischemic heart disease. Cardiovasc Ultrasound. 2017;15(18):3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Clavel M, Ennezat P, Marechaux S, et al. Stress echocardiography to assess stenosis severity and predict outcome in patients with paradoxical low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis and preserved LVEF. J Am Coll Cardiol Imaging. 2013;6:175–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Quere JP, Monin JL, Levy F, Petit H, Baleynaud S, Chauvel C, Pop C, Ohlmann P, Lelguen C, Dehant P, Gueret P, Tribouilloy C. Influence of preoperative left ventricular contractile reserve on postoperative ejection fraction in low-gradient aortic stenosis. Circulation. 2006;113:1738–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tribouilloy C, Levy 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
  39. 39.
    Clavel MA, Webb JG, Rodés-Cabau J, Masson JB, Dumont E, De Larochellière R, Doyle D, Bergeron S, Baumgartner H, Burwash IG, Dumesnil JG, Mundigler G, Moss R, Kempny A, Bagur R, Bergler-Klein J, Gurvitch R, Mathieu P, Pibarot P. Comparison between transcatheter and surgical prosthetic valve implantation in patients with severe aortic stenosis and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. Circulation. 2010;122:1928–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gotzmann M, Lindstaedt M, Bojara W, Ewers A, Mugge A. Clinical outcome of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with low-flow, low gradient aortic stenosis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;79:693–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bauer F, Coutant V, Bernard M, Stepowski D, Tron C, Cribier A, Bessou JP, Eltchaninoff H. Patients with severe aortic stenosis and reduced ejection fraction: earlier recovery of left ventricular systolic function after transcatheter aortic valve implantation compared with surgical valve replacement. Echocardiography. 2013;30:865–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    O’Sullivan CJ, Wenaweser P. Low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis: should TAVI be the default therapeutic option? EuroIntervention. 2014;10:775–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Pibarot P, Weissman NJ, Stewart WJ, Hahn RT, Lindman BR, McAndrew T, Kodali SK, Mack MJ, Thourani VH, Miller DC, Svensson LG, Herrmann HC, Smith CR, Rodés-Cabau J, Webb J, Lim S, Xu K, Hueter I, Douglas PS, Leon MB. Incidence and sequelae of prosthesis-patient mismatch in transcatheter versus surgical valve replacement in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis—a PARTNER Trial Cohort A analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;30:1323–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Clavel MA, Dumesnil JG, Capoulade R, Mathieu P, Senechal M, Pibarot P. Outcome of patients with aortic stenosis, small valve area, and low-flow, low-gradient despite preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:1259–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tribouilloy C, Rusinaru D, Marechaux S, Castel AL, Debry N, Maizel J, Mentaverri R, Kamel S, Slama M, Levy F. Low-gradient, low-flow severe aortic stenosis with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction: characteristics, outcome, and implications for surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65:55–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Jander N, Minners J, Holme I, Gerdts E, Boman K, Brudi P, Chambers JB, Egstrup K, Kesaniemi YA, Malbecq W, Nienaber CA, Ray S, Rossebo A, Pedersen TR, Skjaerpe T, Willenheimer R, Wachtell K, Neumann FJ, Gohlke-Barwolf C. Outcome of patients with low-gradient “severe” aortic stenosis and preserved ejection fraction. Circulation. 2011;123:887–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Quirino Ciampi
    • 1
  • Fiore Manganelli
    • 2
  • Bruno Villari
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of CardiologyFatebenefratelli HospitalBeneventoItaly
  2. 2.Division of CardiologySan Giuseppe Moscati HospitalAvellinoItaly

Personalised recommendations