| 1. |
- Jander, Nikolaus, et al.
(författare)
-
Outcome of Patients With Low-Gradient "Severe" Aortic Stenosis and Preserved Ejection Fraction
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Circulation. - 1524-4539 .- 0009-7322. ; 123:8, s. 887-895
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background-Retrospective studies have suggested that patients with a low transvalvular gradient in the presence of an aortic valve area <1.0 cm(2) and normal ejection fraction may represent a subgroup with an advanced stage of aortic valve disease, reduced stroke volume, and poor prognosis requiring early surgery. We therefore evaluated the outcome of patients with low-gradient "severe" stenosis (defined as aortic valve area < 1.0 cm(2) and mean gradient <= 40 mm Hg) in the prospective Simvastatin and Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis (SEAS) study. Methods and Results-Outcome in patients with low-gradient "severe" aortic stenosis was compared with outcome in patients with moderate stenosis (aortic valve area 1.0 to 1.5 cm(2); mean gradient 25 to 40 mm Hg). The primary end point of aortic valve events included death from cardiovascular causes, aortic valve replacement, and heart failure due to aortic stenosis. Secondary end points were major cardiovascular events and cardiovascular death. In 1525 asymptomatic patients (mean age, 67 +/- 10 years; ejection fraction, >= 55%), baseline echocardiography revealed low-gradient severe stenosis in 435 patients (29%) and moderate stenosis in 184 (12%). Left ventricular mass was lower in patients with low-gradient severe stenosis than in those with moderate stenosis (182 +/- 64 versus 212 +/- 68 g; P < 0.01). During 46 months of follow-up, aortic valve events occurred in 48.5% versus 44.6%, respectively (P=0.37; major cardiovascular events, 50.9% versus 48.5%, P=0.58; cardiovascular death, 7.8% versus 4.9%, P=0.19). Low-gradient severe stenosis patients with reduced stroke volume index (<= 35 mL/m(2); n=223) had aortic valve events comparable to those in patients with normal stroke volume index (46.2% versus 50.9%; P=0.53). Conclusions-Patients with low-gradient "severe" aortic stenosis and normal ejection fraction have an outcome similar to that in patients with moderate stenosis. (Circulation. 2011;123:887-895.)
|
|
| 3. |
- Minners, Jan, et al.
(författare)
-
Adjusting parameters of aortic valve stenosis severity by body size
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Heart. - : BMJ. - 1355-6037 .- 1468-201X. ; 100:13, s. 1024-1030
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Adjustment of cardiac dimensions by measures of body size appears intuitively convincing and in patients with aortic stenosis, aortic valve area (AVA) is commonly adjusted by body surface area (BSA). However, there is little evidence to support such an approach. Objective To identify the adequate measure of body size for the adjustment of aortic stenosis severity. Methods Parameters of aortic stenosis severity (jet velocity, mean pressure gradient (MPG) and AVA) and measures of body size (height, weight, BSA and body mass index (BMI)) were analysed in 2843 consecutive patients with aortic stenosis (jet velocity >= 2.5 m/s) and related to outcomes in a second cohort of 1525 patients from the Simvastatin/Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis (SEAS) study. Results Whereas jet velocity and MPG were independent of body size, AVA was significantly correlated with height, weight, BSA and BMI (Pearson correlation coefficient (r) 0.319, 0.281, 0.317 and 0.126, respectively, all p<0.001) to the effect that larger patients presented with larger AVA (less severe stenosis). Of the anthropometric measures used for linear adjustment, BSA was most effective in eliminating the correlation between AVA and body size (r=0.007), rivalled only by allometric (non-linear) models, findings that are confirmed in 1525 prospectively followed patients from the SEAS study. Predictive accuracy for aortic valve events and cardiovascular death during 46 months of follow-up was unchanged by adjusting AVA, regardless of measure of body size (area under the receiver operating curve for AVA 0.72 (CI 0.58 to 0.87) versus, for example, AVA/BSA 0.75 (CI 0.61 to 0.88), p=0.22). Conclusions In the assessment of aortic stenosis, linear adjustment of AVA by BSA improves comparability between patients with diverging body size without, however, increasing the predictive accuracy for clinical events in a population with mild to moderate stenosis.
|
|
