Department of Cardiology, Hospital Universitari Vall d´Hebron-VIHR, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
CIBER cardiovascular (CIBERCV), Spain.
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2023 Jul 24;24(8):1120-1128. doi: 10.1093/ehjci/jead067.
To assess the progression of the disease and evolution of the main echocardiographic variables for quantifying AS in patients with severe low-flow low-gradient (LFLG) AS compared to other severe AS subtypes.
Longitudinal, observational, multicenter study including consecutive asymptomatic patients with severe AS (aortic valve area, AVA < 1.0 cm²) and normal left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF ≥ 50%). Patients were classified according to baseline echocardiography into: HG (high gradient; mean gradient ≥ 40 mmHg), NFLG (normal-flow low-gradient; mean gradient < 40 mmHg, indexed systolic volume (SVi) > 35mL/m2), or LFLG (mean gradient < 40 mmHg, SVi ≤ 35 mL/m²). AS progression was analyzed by comparing patients' baseline measurements and their last follow-up measurements or those taken prior to aortic valve replacement (AVR). Of the 903 included patients, 401 (44.4%) were HG, 405 (44.9%) NFLG, and 97 (10.7%) LFLG. Progression of the mean gradient in a linear mixed regression model was greater in low-gradient groups: LFLG vs. HG (regression coefficient 0.124, P = 0.005) and NFLG vs. HG (regression coefficient 0.068, P = 0.018). No differences were observed between the LFLG and NFLG groups (regression coefficient 0.056, P = 0.195). However, AVA reduction was slower in the LFLG group compared to the NFLG (P < 0.001). During follow-up, in conservatively-managed patients, 19.1% (n = 9) of LFLG patients evolved to having NFLG AS and 44.7% (n = 21) to having HG AS. In patients undergoing AVR, 58.0% (n = 29) of LFLG baseline patients received AVR with a HG AS.
LFLG AS shows an intermediate AVA and gradient progression compared to NFLG and HG AS. The majority of patients initially classified as having LFLG AS changed over time to having other severe forms of AS, and most of them received AVR with a HG AS.
评估疾病进展和主要超声心动图变量的演变,以定量评估严重低流量低梯度(LFLG)AS 患者的 AS 与其他严重 AS 亚型相比。
这是一项包括连续无症状的严重 AS(主动脉瓣面积,AVA < 1.0 cm²)和正常左心室射血分数(LVEF≥50%)患者的纵向、观察性、多中心研究。根据基线超声心动图将患者分为:HG(高梯度;平均梯度≥40mmHg)、NFLG(正常流量低梯度;平均梯度<40mmHg,指数收缩容积(SVi)>35mL/m2)或 LFLG(平均梯度<40mmHg,SVi≤35mL/m²)。通过比较患者的基线测量值和最后一次随访测量值或在主动脉瓣置换(AVR)之前的测量值来分析 AS 的进展。在纳入的 903 例患者中,401 例(44.4%)为 HG,405 例(44.9%)为 NFLG,97 例(10.7%)为 LFLG。在线性混合回归模型中,平均梯度的进展在低梯度组中更大:LFLG 与 HG(回归系数 0.124,P = 0.005)和 NFLG 与 HG(回归系数 0.068,P = 0.018)。LFLG 组与 NFLG 组之间无差异(回归系数 0.056,P = 0.195)。然而,与 NFLG 相比,LFLG 组的 AVA 降低速度较慢(P<0.001)。在随访期间,在保守治疗的患者中,19.1%(n=9)的 LFLG 患者进展为 NFLG AS,44.7%(n=21)进展为 HG AS。在接受 AVR 的患者中,58.0%(n=29)的 LFLG 基线患者接受了 HG AS 的 AVR。
与 NFLG 和 HG AS 相比,LFLG AS 显示出中等的 AVA 和梯度进展。最初分类为 LFLG AS 的大多数患者随时间推移发生变化,变为其他严重形式的 AS,其中大多数患者接受 HG AS 的 AVR。