Key result
Instantaneous valvulo-arterial impedance yields ~4-fold higher estimates of global LV load than valvulo-arterial load.
Why the study?
Two cardiac magnetic resonance techniques (ZVA-INS and VAL) have been described to quantify global LV load in aortic stenosis, but their concordance had not been evaluated.
Is there concordance between valvulo-arterial impedance instantaneous (ZVA-INS) and valvulo-arterial load (VAL) measured by CMR in patients with aortic stenosis?
Observational (n=20)
No
Is there concordance between valvulo-arterial impedance instantaneous (ZVA-INS) and valvulo-arterial load (VAL) measured by CMR in patients with aortic stenosis?
Absolute Event Rate: 3990% vs 946%
p-value: p=<0.01
In patients with aortic stenosis, CMR-derived global LV load is significantly higher when measured by ZVA-INS compared to VAL, likely due to the inclusion of maximum AV gradient.
Discordance between ZVA-INS and VAL advises against interchangeable use in aortic stenosis; leaves open outcome validation of CMR load metrics.
Background and Aim: The left ventricle (LV) faces a dual afterload in patients with aortic stenosis (AS) – both from the valve and vasculature. Together they form the global LV load. Two cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) techniques have been described to quantify global LV load: (1) valvulo-arterial impedance instantaneous (ZVA-INS) and (2) valvulo-arterial load (VAL). The purpose of this study was to evaluate concordance (if any) between ZVA-INS and VAL. Methods: Twenty AS patients were compared (80 ± 9 years; 12 males; 80% severe). Aortic flow velocity data was obtained during breath-hold using through-plane PC Qflow imaging. ZVA-INS was determined as the relationship of aortic pressure and maximum aortic valve (AV) gradient to ascending aorta flow velocity in the time domain. VAL was determined as the relationship of aortic pressure to ascending aorta flow velocity in the frequency domain. Values from both methods were compared against total arterial compliance (TAC). Results: Global LV load was significantly higher when assessed by ZVA-INS (3990±1795 dynes.s.cm³) than VAL (946±318 dynes.s.cm³) (R=0.941; R²=0.886; F=109.2; P<0.01) due to the addition of maximum AV gradient. VAL was linearly related to TAC with no significant difference (R=0.313; R²=0.098; F=1.413; P=0.256). Conclusion: This study presents the first direct comparison of CMR methods to assess global LV load in patients with AS. We conclude a significant difference between ZVA-INS and VAL, but not between VAL and TAC. This relationship is most likely due to the addition of maximum AV gradient.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hungerford et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Aortic Stenosis (n=20). Valvulo-arterial impedance instantaneous (ZVA-INS) vs. Valvulo-arterial load (VAL) was evaluated on Global left ventricular load (dynes.s.cm³) (p=<0.01). Valvulo-arterial impedance instantaneous yielded significantly higher estimates of global left ventricular load (3990±1795 dynes.s.cm³) compared to valvulo-arterial load (946±318 dynes.s.cm³).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: