Pseudo-discordance mimicking low-flow low-gradient aortic stenosis in transcatheter aortic valve replacement patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis.
aortic stenosis
aortic valve
calcium
echocardiography
valvular disease
Journal
Cardiology journal
ISSN: 1898-018X
Titre abrégé: Cardiol J
Pays: Poland
ID NLM: 101392712
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
04
06
2021
accepted:
11
08
2021
revised:
01
08
2021
medline:
20
6
2023
pubmed:
29
9
2021
entrez:
28
9
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
While the combination of a small aortic valve area (AVA) and low mean gradient is frequently labeled 'low-flow low-gradient aortic stenosis (AS)', there are two potential causes for this finding: underestimation of mean gradient and underestimation of AVA. In order to investigate the prevalence and causes of discordant echocardiographic findings in symptomatic patients with AS and normal left ventricular (LV) function, we evaluated 72 symptomatic patients with AS and normal LV function by comparing Doppler, invasive, computed tomography (CT) LV outflow tract (LVOT) area, and calcium score (CaSc). Thirty-six patients had discordant echocardiographic findings (mean gradient < 40 mmHg, AVA ≤ 1 cm²). Of those, 19 had discordant invasive measurements (true discordant [TD]) and 17 concordant (false discordant [FD]): In 12 of the FD the mean gradient was > 30 mmHg; technical pitfalls were found in 10 patients (no reliable right parasternal Doppler in 6). LVOT area by echocardiography or CT could not differentiate between concordants and discordants nor between TD and FD (p = NS). CaSc was similar in concordants and FD (p = 0.3), and it was higher in true concordants than in TD (p = 0.005). CaSc positive predictive value for the correct diagnosis of severe AS was 95% for concordants and 93% for discordants. Discordant echocardiographic findings are commonly found in patients with symptomatic AS. Underestimation of the true mean gradient due to technical difficulties is an important cause of these discrepant findings. LVOT area by echocardiography or CT cannot differentiate between TD and FD. In the absence of a reliable and compete multi-window Doppler evaluation, patients should undergo CaSc assessment.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
While the combination of a small aortic valve area (AVA) and low mean gradient is frequently labeled 'low-flow low-gradient aortic stenosis (AS)', there are two potential causes for this finding: underestimation of mean gradient and underestimation of AVA.
METHODS
In order to investigate the prevalence and causes of discordant echocardiographic findings in symptomatic patients with AS and normal left ventricular (LV) function, we evaluated 72 symptomatic patients with AS and normal LV function by comparing Doppler, invasive, computed tomography (CT) LV outflow tract (LVOT) area, and calcium score (CaSc).
RESULTS
Thirty-six patients had discordant echocardiographic findings (mean gradient < 40 mmHg, AVA ≤ 1 cm²). Of those, 19 had discordant invasive measurements (true discordant [TD]) and 17 concordant (false discordant [FD]): In 12 of the FD the mean gradient was > 30 mmHg; technical pitfalls were found in 10 patients (no reliable right parasternal Doppler in 6). LVOT area by echocardiography or CT could not differentiate between concordants and discordants nor between TD and FD (p = NS). CaSc was similar in concordants and FD (p = 0.3), and it was higher in true concordants than in TD (p = 0.005). CaSc positive predictive value for the correct diagnosis of severe AS was 95% for concordants and 93% for discordants.
CONCLUSIONS
Discordant echocardiographic findings are commonly found in patients with symptomatic AS. Underestimation of the true mean gradient due to technical difficulties is an important cause of these discrepant findings. LVOT area by echocardiography or CT cannot differentiate between TD and FD. In the absence of a reliable and compete multi-window Doppler evaluation, patients should undergo CaSc assessment.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34581429
pii: VM/OJS/J/84012
doi: 10.5603/CJ.a2021.0106
pmc: PMC10287073
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
422-430Références
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Jan 10;59(2):119-27
pubmed: 22222074
Am Heart J. 2008 Apr;155(4):765-71
pubmed: 18371491
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015 Jul;28(7):780-5
pubmed: 25857547
Heart. 2017 Jan 1;103(1):32-39
pubmed: 27504001
Cardiology. 1990;77(2):101-11
pubmed: 2397487
Can J Cardiol. 2014 Sep;30(9):1064-72
pubmed: 25151288
J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2011 Mar-Apr;5(2):113-8
pubmed: 21167806
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Jun 10;63(22):2438-88
pubmed: 24603192
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1990 Mar 15;15(4):827-32
pubmed: 2407762
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2017 Apr;30(4):372-392
pubmed: 28385280
Am Heart J. 2016 Dec;182:80-88
pubmed: 27914503
Heart. 2015 Sep;101(17):1375-81
pubmed: 26105038
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2021 Mar;14(3):525-536
pubmed: 33221240
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Oct 15;74(15):1851-1863
pubmed: 31491546
Circulation. 2007 Jun 5;115(22):2856-64
pubmed: 17533183
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014 May;7(3):545-51
pubmed: 24847008
Heart. 2010 Sep;96(18):1463-8
pubmed: 20813727
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2008 May;1(3):321-30
pubmed: 19356444
Eur J Echocardiogr. 2009 May;10(3):420-4
pubmed: 19036750
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014 Jul;7(4):714-22
pubmed: 24777938
Eur Heart J. 2017 Sep 21;38(36):2739-2791
pubmed: 28886619
Am J Cardiol. 2015 Aug 15;116(4):612-7
pubmed: 26089012
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016 Jul;9(7):797-805
pubmed: 27209111
Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2018 Nov - Dec;61(5-6):416-422
pubmed: 30445161
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018 Sep;11(9):1225-1232
pubmed: 29055632