Key result
Echo mean gradients closely match invasive hemodynamics in low-gradient severe AS with preserved LVEF.
Why the study?
Controversy exists whether low gradient severe aortic stenosis despite preserved ejection fraction is due to errors in echocardiographic measurements or reflects true hemodynamic status.
Observational (n=80)
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Comparative study reveals concordant invasive and echocardiographic measures in low-gradient severe aortic stenosis, indicating true disease rather than measurement artifact.
OBJECTIVES: The study sought to compare echocardiographic with invasive hemodynamic data in patients with "paradoxic" aortic stenosis and in patients with conventionally defined severe aortic stenosis. BACKGROUND: Controversy exists whether low gradient severe aortic stenosis despite preserved ejection fraction ("paradoxic" aortic stenosis; aortic valve area <1 cm(2), mean gradient <40 mm Hg, ejection fraction >50%), which has been mainly diagnosed by echocardiography (echo), may be largely due to mistakes in echocardiographic measurements. METHODS: We compared echocardiographic and invasive hemodynamic data from 58 patients (43% male, mean age 77 ± 5 years) with "paradoxic" aortic stenosis. Data of 22 patients (45% male, mean age 73 ± 7 years) with conventionally defined severe aortic stenosis area (aortic valve area ≤1 cm(2), mean gradient >40 mm Hg, ejection fraction ≥50%) were also analyzed. RESULTS: In patients with "paradoxic" aortic stenosis, orifice area by echo (0.80 ± 0.15 cm(2)) and catheterization showed modest agreement, whether stroke volume was measured by oxymetry (0.69 ± 0.16 cm(2), bias 0.14 ± 0.17 cm(2)), or by thermodilution (0.85 ± 0.19 cm(2), bias -0.03 ± 0.19 cm(2)). Mean systolic gradients were very similar (32 ± 7 mm Hg vs. 31 ± 6 mm Hg; bias -0.08 ± 7.8 mm Hg). In comparison, in patients with conventionally defined severe aortic stenosis, orifice area by echo was 0.72 ± 0.17 cm(2) and by catheterization 0.51 ± 0.15 cm(2) (oxymetry) and 0.68 ± 0.21 cm(2) (thermodilution), respectively, and mean systolic gradient 51 ± 10 mm Hg and 55 ± 8 mm Hg, respectively. Ejection fractions did not differ significantly in both groups. Ascending aortic diameter was significantly smaller in the "paradoxic" aortic stenosis group than in patients with conventionally defined severe aortic stenosis (28 ± 5 mm vs. 31 ± 5 mm), and energy loss index was significantly larger (0.51 ± 0.12 cm(2)/m(2) vs. 0.42 ± 0.09 cm(2)/m(2), respectively). Heart rate and mean blood pressure during echo and catheterization were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: Occurrence of low gradient severe aortic stenosis despite preserved ejection fraction was confirmed by invasive hemodynamics and was not the result of a systematic bias in the echo calculation of aortic orifice area.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lauten et al. (2013) conducted an observational in Severe aortic stenosis (n=80). Echocardiographic measurement vs. Invasive hemodynamic measurement was evaluated on Agreement between echocardiographic and invasive hemodynamic measurements of aortic valve area and mean systolic gradient. Echocardiographic measurements of mean systolic gradient closely matched invasive hemodynamics (32 vs 31 mm Hg) in patients with low gradient severe aortic stenosis and preserved ejection fraction.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: