Key result
TAVI in low-flow low-gradient severe AS shows comparable mortality and symptom improvements to high-gradient patients.
Why the study?
The invasive haemodynamic characteristics and clinical outcomes after TAVI in patients with paradoxical low-flow, low-gradient severe AS and low-flow, low-gradient severe AS with reduced EF were not well defined.
Does TAVI provide comparable clinical outcomes and symptomatic improvement in patients with low-flow, low-gradient severe AS compared to high-gradient severe AS?
Cohort (n=534)
Does TAVI provide comparable clinical outcomes and symptomatic improvement in patients with low-flow, low-gradient severe AS compared to high-gradient severe AS?
TAVI in patients with low-flow, low-gradient severe aortic stenosis yields comparable 1-year overall mortality and symptomatic improvement to those with high-gradient severe AS.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Hypothesis-generating for TAVI in low-flow low-gradient severe AS; prospective trials needed before clinical adoption.
AIMS: Our aim was to evaluate the invasive haemodynamic indices of high-risk symptomatic patients presenting with 'paradoxical' low-flow, low-gradient, severe aortic stenosis (AS) (PLF-LG) and low-flow, low-gradient severe AS (LEF-LG) and to compare clinical outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) among these challenging AS subgroups. METHODS AND RESULTS: Of 534 symptomatic patients undergoing TAVI, 385 had a full pre-procedural right and left heart catheterization. A total of 208 patients had high-gradient severe AS [HGAS; mean gradient (MG) ≥40 mmHg], 85 had PLF-LG [MG ≤ 40 mmHg, indexed aortic valve area [iAVA] ≤0.6 cm(2) m(-2), stroke volume index ≤35 mL/m(2), ejection fraction (EF) ≥50%], and 61 had LEF-LG (MG ≤ 40 mmHg, iAVA ≤0.6 cm(2) m(-2), EF ≤40%). Compared with HGAS, PLF-LG and LEF-LG had higher systemic vascular resistances (HGAS: 1912 ± 654 vs. PLF-LG: 2006 ± 586 vs. LEF-LG: 2216 ± 765 dyne s m(-5), P = 0.007) but lower valvulo-arterial impedances (HGAS: 7.8 ± 2.7 vs. PLF-LG: 6.9 ± 1.9 vs. LEF-LG: 7.7 ± 2.5 mmHg mL(-1) m(-2), P = 0.027). At 30 days, no differences in cardiac death (6.5 vs. 4.9 vs. 6.6%, P = 0.90) or death (8.4 vs. 6.1 vs. 6.6%, P = 0.88) were observed among HGAS, PLF-LG, and LEF-LG groups, respectively. At 1 year, New York Heart Association functional improvement occurred in most surviving patients (HGAS: 69.2% vs. PLF-LG: 71.7% vs. LEF-LG: 89.3%, P = 0.09) and no significant differences in overall mortality were observed (17.6 vs. 20.5 vs. 24.5%, P = 0.67). Compared with HGAS, LEF-LG had a higher 1 year cardiac mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 2.45, 95% confidence interval 1.04-5.75, P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: TAVI in PLF-LG or LEF-LG patients is associated with overall mortality rates comparable with HGAS patients and all groups profit symptomatically to a similar extent.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
O’Sullivan et al. (2013) conducted a cohort in severe aortic stenosis (n=534). Low-flow, low-gradient severe AS (PLF-LG and LEF-LG) vs. High-gradient severe AS (HGAS) was evaluated on 1-year overall mortality (p=0.67). TAVI in low-flow, low-gradient severe AS was associated with 1-year overall mortality comparable to high-gradient AS (20.5% and 24.5% vs 17.6%, P=0.67).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: