Clavel Marie-Annick, Magne Julien, Pibarot Philippe
Québec Heart and Lung Institute/Institut Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de Québec, Université Laval, 2725 Chemin Sainte Foy, #A-2075, QC, Canada G1V4G5.
CHU Limoges, Hôpital Dupuytren, Faculté de médecine de Limoges, Limoge, France.
Eur Heart J. 2016 Sep 7;37(34):2645-57. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehw096. Epub 2016 Mar 31.
An important proportion of patients with aortic stenosis (AS) have a 'low-gradient' AS, i.e. a small aortic valve area (AVA <1.0 cm(2)) consistent with severe AS but a low mean transvalvular gradient (<40 mmHg) consistent with non-severe AS. The management of this subset of patients is particularly challenging because the AVA-gradient discrepancy raises uncertainty about the actual stenosis severity and thus about the indication for aortic valve replacement (AVR) if the patient has symptoms and/or left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction. The most frequent cause of low-gradient (LG) AS is the presence of a low LV outflow state, which may occur with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), i.e. classical low-flow, low-gradient (LF-LG), or preserved LVEF, i.e. paradoxical LF-LG. Furthermore, a substantial proportion of patients with AS may have a normal-flow, low-gradient (NF-LG) AS: i.e. a small AVA-low-gradient combination but with a normal flow. One of the most important clinical challenges in these three categories of patients with LG AS (classical LF-LG, paradoxical LF-LG, and NF-LG) is to differentiate a true-severe AS that generally benefits from AVR vs. a pseudo-severe AS that should be managed conservatively. A low-dose dobutamine stress echocardiography may be used for this purpose in patients with classical LF-LG AS, whereas aortic valve calcium scoring by multi-detector computed tomography is the preferred modality in those with paradoxical LF-LG or NF-LG AS. Although patients with LF-LG severe AS have worse outcomes than those with high-gradient AS following AVR, they nonetheless display an important survival benefit with this intervention. Some studies suggest that transcatheter AVR may be superior to surgical AVR in patients with LF-LG AS.
相当一部分主动脉瓣狭窄(AS)患者存在“低跨瓣压差”AS,即主动脉瓣面积小(AVA<1.0 cm²),符合重度AS,但平均跨瓣压差低(<40 mmHg),符合非重度AS。这类患者的管理极具挑战性,因为AVA与跨瓣压差的差异增加了对实际狭窄严重程度的不确定性,进而在患者出现症状和/或左心室(LV)收缩功能障碍时,对主动脉瓣置换术(AVR)的指征也产生了不确定性。低跨瓣压差(LG)AS最常见的原因是左心室流出道状态低下,这可能发生在左心室射血分数(LVEF)降低时,即典型的低流量、低跨瓣压差(LF-LG),或LVEF保留时,即矛盾性LF-LG。此外,相当一部分AS患者可能存在正常流量、低跨瓣压差(NF-LG)AS:即AVA与低跨瓣压差的组合,但流量正常。在这三类LG AS患者(典型LF-LG、矛盾性LF-LG和NF-LG)中,最重要的临床挑战之一是区分一般受益于AVR的真正重度AS与应保守治疗的假性重度AS。低剂量多巴酚丁胺负荷超声心动图可用于典型LF-LG AS患者,而对于矛盾性LF-LG或NF-LG AS患者,多排计算机断层扫描的主动脉瓣钙化评分是首选方法。尽管LF-LG重度AS患者在AVR后比高跨瓣压差AS患者预后更差,但该干预措施仍能显著提高其生存率。一些研究表明,经导管AVR在LF-LG AS患者中可能优于外科AVR。