Low-gradient, low-flow severe aortic stenosis with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction: characteristics, outcome, and implications for surgery

• Published in: Journal of the American College of Cardiology Vol. 65; no. 1; p. 55
• Main Authors: Tribouilloy, Christophe, Rusinaru, Dan, Maréchaux, Sylvestre, Castel, Anne-Laure, Debry, Nicolas, Maizel, Julien, Mentaverri, Romuald, Kamel, Said, Slama, Michel, Lévy, Franck
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 06.01.2015
• Subjects: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Aortic Valve Stenosis - diagnostic imaging; Aortic Valve Stenosis - mortality; Aortic Valve Stenosis - physiopathology; Aortic Valve Stenosis - surgery; Female; Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Multivariate Analysis; Retrospective Studies; Stroke Volume; Treatment Outcome; Ultrasonography; mortality; aortic valve; follow-up studies; cardiac surgical procedures
• ISSN: 1558-3597; 1558-3597
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.09.080

Severe low-gradient, low-flow (LG/LF) aortic stenosis with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) has been described as a more advanced form of aortic stenosis. However, the natural history and need for surgery in patients with LG/LF aortic stenosis remain subjects of intense debate. We sought to investigate the outcome of LG/LF aortic stenosis in comparison with moderate aortic stenosis and with high-gradient (HG) aortic stenosis in a real-world study, in the context of routine practice. This analysis included 809 patients (ages 75 ± 12 years) diagnosed with aortic stenosis and preserved EF (≥50%). Patients were divided into 4 groups: mild-to-moderate aortic stenosis; HG aortic stenosis; LG/LF aortic stenosis; and low-gradient, normal-flow (LG/NF) aortic stenosis. Compared with mild-to-moderate aortic stenosis patients, LG/LF aortic stenosis patients had smaller valve areas and stroke volumes, higher mean gradients, and comparable degrees of ventricular hypertrophy. Under medical management (22.8 months; range 7 to 53 months), compared with mild-to-moderate aortic stenosis patients, HG aortic stenosis patients were at higher risk of death (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 1.47; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03 to 2.07), whereas LG/LF aortic stenosis patients did not have an excess mortality risk (adjusted HR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.53 to 1.48). During the entire (39.0 months; range 11 to 69 months) follow-up (with medical and surgical management), the mortality risk associated with LG/LF aortic stenosis was close to that of mild-to-moderate aortic stenosis (adjusted HR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.53), whereas the excess risk of death associated with HG aortic stenosis was confirmed (adjusted HR: 1.74; 95% CI: 1.27 to 2.39). The benefit associated with aortic valve replacement was confined to the HG aortic stenosis group (adjusted HR: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.46) and was not observed for LG/LF aortic stenosis (adjusted HR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.14 to 4.05). In this study, the outcome of severe LG/LF aortic stenosis with preserved EF was similar to that of mild-to-moderate aortic stenosis and was not favorably influenced by aortic surgery. Further research is needed to better understand the natural history and the progression of LG/LF aortic stenosis.