Why the study?
Do different flow-gradient patterns of aortic stenosis affect clinical outcomes after aortic valve replacement?
Do different flow-gradient patterns of aortic stenosis affect clinical outcomes after aortic valve replacement?
Following aortic valve replacement, patients with classical low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis have worse 2-year outcomes compared to those with high-gradient AS, while those with low-gradient AS and preserved LVEF have comparable outcomes.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
CLF-LG AS after AVR may warrant intensified surveillance; leaves open whether flow-gradient patterns should guide patient selection or timing in prospective studies.
The LG AS pattern was highly prevalent (36.5%) in the PARTNER 2 trial and registry. CLF-LG was the most common pattern of LG AS and was associated with higher rates of death, rehospitalization, or stroke at 2 years compared with the HG group. Clinical outcomes were as good in the LG AS groups with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction compared with the HG group.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Salaün et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: