Impaired Left Ventricular Circumferential Midwall Systolic Performance Appears Linked to Depressed Preload, but Not Intrinsic Contractile Dysfunction or Excessive Afterload, in Paradoxical Low-Flow/Low-Gradient Severe Aortic Stenosis.

afterload aortic stenosis left ventricular systolic function low-flow state preload

Journal

Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
19 May 2022
Historique:
received: 03 04 2022
revised: 30 04 2022
accepted: 09 05 2022
entrez: 28 5 2022
pubmed: 29 5 2022
medline: 29 5 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Paradoxical low-flow/low-gradient aortic stenosis (P-LFLG-AS) occurs in about one-third of patients with severe AS and preserved left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF). Our aim was to differentiate between altered LV loading conditions and contractility as determinants of subtle LV systolic dysfunction in P-LFLG-AS. We retrospectively analyzed medical records of patients with isolated severe degenerative AS and preserved EF (30 subjects with P-LFLG-AS and 30 patients with normal-flow/high-gradient severe AS (NFHG-AS)), without relevant coexistent diseases (e.g., diabetes, coronary artery disease and chronic kidney disease) or any abnormalities which could account for a low-flow state. Patients with P-LFLG-AS and NFHG-AS did not differ in aortic valve area index and most clinical characteristics. Compared to NFHG-AS, subjects with P-LFLG-AS exhibited smaller LV end-diastolic diameter (LVd) (44 ± 5 vs. 54 ± 5 mm, p < 0.001) (consistent with lower LV preload) with pronounced concentric remodeling, higher valvulo-arterial impedance (3.8 ± 1.1 vs. 2.2 ± 0.5 mmHg per mL/m2, p < 0.001) and diminished systemic arterial compliance (0.45 ± 0.11 vs. 0.76 ± 0.23 mL/m2 per mmHg, p < 0.001), while circumferential end-systolic LV midwall stress (cESS), an estimate of afterload at the LV level, was similar in P-LFLG-AS and NFHG-AS (175 ± 83 vs. 198 ± 69 hPa, p = 0.3). LV midwall fractional shortening (mwFS) was depressed in P-LFLG-AS vs. NFHG-AS (12.3 ± 3.5 vs. 14.7 ± 2.9%, p = 0.006) despite similar EF (61 ± 6 vs. 59 ± 8%, p = 0.4). By multiple regression, the presence of P-LFLG-AS remained a significant predictor of lower mwFS compared to NFHG-AS upon adjustment for cESS (β ± SEM: −2.35 ± 0.67, p < 0.001); however, the significance was lost after further correction for LVd (β = −1.10 ± 0.85, p = 0.21). In conclusion, the association of P-LFLG-AS with a lower cESS-adjusted mwFS, an index of afterload-corrected LV circumferential systolic function at the midwall level, appears secondary to a smaller LV end-diastolic cavity size according to the Frank−Starling law. Thus, low LV preload, not intrinsic contractile dysfunction or excessive afterload, may account for impaired LV circumferential midwall systolic performance in P-LFLG-AS.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35628998
pii: jcm11102873
doi: 10.3390/jcm11102873
pmc: PMC9144151
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Subventions

Organisme : Jagiellonian University
ID : not yet assigned

Références

Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012 Jan;5(1):27-35
pubmed: 22109983
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019 Jan;12(1):84-92
pubmed: 30621997
Circulation. 1989 Apr;79(4):872-83
pubmed: 2522357
Circulation. 2005 Aug 23;112(8):1136-44
pubmed: 16103240
Eur Heart J. 2017 Sep 21;38(36):2739-2791
pubmed: 28886619
Kardiol Pol. 2018;76(10):1486-1488
pubmed: 30234903
J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown). 2017 Feb;18(2):87-95
pubmed: 26556444
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015 Dec 15;66(23):2594-2603
pubmed: 26670058
Echocardiography. 2021 Jan;38(1):31-38
pubmed: 33146452
Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2019 Jul 17;18(1):92
pubmed: 31315620
J Clin Med. 2018 Nov 22;7(12):
pubmed: 30469477
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2021 Mar;14(3):525-536
pubmed: 33221240
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1990 Mar 15;15(4):890-9
pubmed: 2137838
Circulation. 2007 Jun 5;115(22):2856-64
pubmed: 17533183
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020 Feb;13(2 Pt 1):357-369
pubmed: 30878438
Circ Heart Fail. 2013 Jul;6(4):703-10
pubmed: 23709656
Sci Rep. 2017 Jul 11;7(1):5092
pubmed: 28698585
Circulation. 2009 Aug 18;120(7):577-84
pubmed: 19652094
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019 Jan;12(1):163-171
pubmed: 30621988
Circulation. 2021 Feb 2;143(5):e72-e227
pubmed: 33332150
Echocardiography. 2017 Jan;34(1):37-43
pubmed: 27805283
Eur Heart J. 2011 Jun;32(12):1542-50
pubmed: 21447510
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011 Jul 19;58(4):402-12
pubmed: 21757118
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020 Apr;13(4):e009958
pubmed: 32268808
Eur Heart J. 2016 Sep 07;37(34):2645-57
pubmed: 27190103
Heart. 2019 Nov;105(21):1629-1633
pubmed: 31154431
Open Heart. 2019 Apr 9;6(1):e001021
pubmed: 31168387
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015 Mar;16(3):233-70
pubmed: 25712077
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017 Oct;10(10):
pubmed: 29021259
Adv Physiol Educ. 2020 Sep 1;44(3):414-422
pubmed: 32697153
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005 Jul 19;46(2):291-8
pubmed: 16022957
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1994 May;23(6):1444-51
pubmed: 8176105
J Heart Valve Dis. 2016 Jan;25(1):28-38
pubmed: 27989081
J Clin Med. 2019 Nov 01;8(11):
pubmed: 31683977
Clin Res Cardiol. 2019 Aug;108(8):931-939
pubmed: 30737530
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995 Jul;26(1):195-202
pubmed: 7797752
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Apr 4;69(13):1755-1756
pubmed: 28359524
Circulation. 1982 Jan;65(1):99-108
pubmed: 7053293
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Nov 6;60(19):1845-53
pubmed: 23062546
Circulation. 1985 Feb;71(2):266-72
pubmed: 3155498
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017 Oct;10(10):
pubmed: 29021264
J Am Heart Assoc. 2018 Apr 13;7(8):
pubmed: 29654191
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2011 Sep;24(9):976-83
pubmed: 21665430
Circulation. 1980 Jul;62(1):42-8
pubmed: 7379284
Heart. 2015 Mar;101(6):478-83
pubmed: 25646140
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011 Sep 13;58(12):1271-9
pubmed: 21903062
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018 Jun;11(6):e007451
pubmed: 29914867
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013 Feb;6(2):175-83
pubmed: 23489531
Circ J. 2014;78(11):2750-9
pubmed: 25273913
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 May 24;67(20):2447-2448
pubmed: 27199070
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 Aug;12(8):e007547
pubmed: 31416359
Circulation. 1993 Nov;88(5 Pt 1):2415-25
pubmed: 8222134
J Am Heart Assoc. 2022 Mar 15;11(6):e024505
pubmed: 35253464
Heart. 2015 Jul;101(13):1015-23
pubmed: 25794516

Auteurs

Dorota Długosz (D)

Department of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, University Hospital, 2 Jakubowskiego Street, 30-688 Cracow, Poland.

Andrzej Surdacki (A)

Department of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, University Hospital, 2 Jakubowskiego Street, 30-688 Cracow, Poland.
Second Department of Cardiology, Institute of Cardiology, Jagiellonian University, 2 Jakubowskiego Street, 30-688 Cracow, Poland.

Barbara Zawiślak (B)

Intensive Care Unit, Department of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, University Hospital, 2 Jakubowskiego Street, 30-688 Cracow, Poland.

Stanisław Bartuś (S)

Department of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, University Hospital, 2 Jakubowskiego Street, 30-688 Cracow, Poland.
Second Department of Cardiology, Institute of Cardiology, Jagiellonian University, 2 Jakubowskiego Street, 30-688 Cracow, Poland.

Bernadeta Chyrchel (B)

Department of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, University Hospital, 2 Jakubowskiego Street, 30-688 Cracow, Poland.
Second Department of Cardiology, Institute of Cardiology, Jagiellonian University, 2 Jakubowskiego Street, 30-688 Cracow, Poland.

Classifications MeSH