Cardiac Imaging for Assessing Low-Gradient Severe Aortic Stenosis

Expert consensus document on the assessment of the severity of aortic valve stenosis by echocardiography to provide diagnostic conclusiveness by standardized verifiable documentation

According to recent recommendations on echocardiographic assessment of aortic valve stenosis direct measurement of transvalvular peak jet velocity, calculation of transvalvular mean gradient from the velocities using the Bernoulli equation and calculation of the effective aortic valve area by continuity equation are the appropriate primary key instruments for grading severity of aortic valve stenosis. It is obvious that no gold standard can be declared for grading the severity of aortic stenosis. Thus, conclusions of the exclusive evaluation of aortic stenosis by Doppler echocardiography seem to be questionable due to the susceptibility to errors caused by methodological limitations, mathematical simplifications and inappropriate documentation. The present paper will address practical issues of echocardiographic documentation to satisfy the needs to analyze different scenarios of aortic stenosis due to various flow conditions and pressure gradients. Transesophageal and multidimensional echocardiography should be implemented for reliable measurement of geometric aortic valve area and of cardiac dimensions at an early stage of the diagnostic procedure to avoid misinterpretation due to inconsistent results.

Contemporary Imaging of Aortic Stenosis

Degenerative or fibrocalcific aortic stenosis (AS) is now the most common native valvular heart disease assessed and managed by cardiologists in developed countries. Transthoracic echocardiography remains the quintessential imaging modality for the non-invasive characterisation of AS due to its widespread availability, superior assessment of flow haemodynamics, and a wealth of prognostic data accumulated over decades of clinical utility and research applications. With expanding technologies and increasing availability of treatment options such as transcatheter aortic valve replacements, in addition to conventional surgical approaches, accurate and precise assessment of AS severity is critical to guide decisions for and timing of interventions. Despite clear guideline echocardiographic parameters demarcating severe AS, discrepancies between transvalvular velocities, gradients, and calculated valve areas are commonly encountered in clinical practice. This often results in diagnostically challenging cases with significant implications. Greater emphasis must be placed on the quality of performance of basic two dimensional (2D) and Doppler measurements (attention to detail ensuring accuracy and precision), incorporating ancillary haemodynamic surrogates, understanding study- or patient-specific confounders, and recognising the role and limitations of stress echocardiography in the subgroups of low-flow low-gradient AS. A multiparametric approach, along with the incorporation of multimodality imaging (cardiac computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging) in certain scenarios, is now mandatory to avoid incorrect misclassification of severe AS. This is essential to ensure appropriate selection of patients who would most benefit from interventions on the aortic valve to relieve the afterload mismatch resulting from truly severe valvular stenosis.

Evaluation of pulmonary artery stenosis in congenital heart disease patients using functional diagnostic parameters: An in vitro study

Congenital pulmonary artery (PA) stenosis is often associated with abnormal PA hemodynamics including increased pressure drop (Δp) and reduced asymmetric flow (Q), which may result in right ventricular dysfunction. We propose functional diagnostic parameters, pressure drop coefficient (CDP), energy loss (E_loss), and normalized energy loss (E¯_loss) to characterize pulmonary hemodynamics, and evaluate their efficacy in delineating stenosis severity using in vitro experiments. Subject-specific test sections including the main PA (MPA) bifurcating into left and right PAs (LPA, RPA) with a discrete LPA stenosis were manufactured from cross-sectional imaging and 3D printing. Three clinically-relevant stenosis severities, 90% area stenosis (AS), 80% AS, and 70% AS, were evaluated at different cardiac outputs (COs). A benchtop flow loop simulating pulmonary hemodynamics was used to measure Q and Δp within the test sections. The experimental Δp-Q characteristics along with clinical data were used to obtain pathophysiologic conditions and compute the diagnostic parameters. The pathophysiologic Q_LPA decreased as the stenosis severity increased at a fixed CO. CDP_LPA, E_loss,LPA (absolute), and E¯_loss,LPA (absolute) increased with an increase in LPA stenosis severity at a fixed CO. Importantly, CDP_LPA and E¯_loss,LPA had reduced variability with CO, and distinct values for each LPA stenosis severity. Under variable CO, a) CDP_LPA values were 14.5-21.0 (70% AS), 60.7- 2.2 (80% AS), ≥ 261.6 (90% AS), and b) E¯_loss,LPA values (in mJ per Q_LPA) were -501.9 to -1023.8 (70% AS), -1247.6 to -1773.0 (80% AS), -1934.5 (90% AS). Hence, CDP_LPA and E¯_loss,LPA are expected to assess the true functional severity of PA stenosis.

Outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with low versus high gradient severe aortic stenosis in the setting of preserved left ventricular ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for low gradient (LG) severe aortic stenosis (AS) with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) remains an area of clinical uncertainty.

METHODS

Retrospective review identified 422 patients who underwent TAVR between September 4, 2014 and July 1, 2016. Procedural indication other than severe AS (n = 22) or LVEF <50% (n = 98) were excluded. Outcomes were defined by valve academic research consortium two criteria when applicable and compared between LG (peak velocity <4.0 m/s and mean gradient <40 mmHg; n = 73) and high gradient (HG) (n = 229) groups. The LG group was further categorized as low stroke volume index (SVI) (n = 41) or normal SVI (n = 32). Median follow-up was 747 days [interquartile range 220-1013].

RESULTS

Baseline thirty-day mortality risk (LG 6.2% [3.8-8.1] vs HG 5.7% [4.1-7.4], P = 0.43) did not differ between groups. Short-term outcomes, including procedural success rate (86.1% vs 88.8%, P = 0.53), peri-procedural complications (intra-procedural heart block: 6.8% vs 7.9%, P = 0.99; permanent pacemaker placement: 11.0% vs 13.6%, P = 0.69; moderate paravalvular regurgitation: 2.7% vs 1.3%, P = 0.60), and all-cause in-hospital mortality (2.7% vs 0.9%, P = 0.25) did not differ between LG and HG groups. On long-term follow-up, all-cause mortality also did not differ between LG and HG groups (6.8% vs 10.0%, p_log-rank  = 0.33) or between the LG low SVI (9.8%), LG normal SVI (3.1%), and HG (10.0%) groups (p_log-rank  = 0.39).

CONCLUSION

Patients with preserved LVEF undergoing TAVR for severe AS with LG, including LG with low SVI, have no significant difference in adverse outcomes when compared to patients with HG.

Sex-Specific Considerations in Women with Aortic Stenosis and Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most common valvular disease in the elderly and is associated with poor outcomes. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in high-risk patients. Herein, we describe the gender-related differences in baseline characteristics and pathophysiologic response to severe AS, imaging considerations unique to females, and short- and long-term outcomes after TAVR. Women undergoing TAVR are older and frailer, have less cardiovascular comorbidities, smaller femoral artery size, better left ventricular systolic function, hypertrophied and small left ventricles leading to a higher incidence of paradoxical low-flow low-gradient AS, and a greater prevalence of porcelain aorta, smaller aortic annulus size, and lower coronary ostia heights. Imaging and histopathological data also suggests a sex-related myocardial response to pressure overload from AS. Women experience more vascular complications and blood transfusion requirements, serious procedural complications, and a greater incidence of stroke, but have better long-term outcomes than men. Patient-prosthesis mismatch, which is a concern in patients with a small aortic annulus size undergoing SAVR, has not been problematic with TAVR. The aforementioned findings suggest that TAVR may be preferable for women with severe AS. Further studies are warranted to directly compare TAVR with SAVR in women.

The evolving approach to the evaluation of low-gradient aortic stenosis

Severe aortic stenosis (AS) is typically identified by a low valve area (≤1.0 cm²) and high mean gradient (≥40 mm Hg). A subset of patients are found to have a less than severe mean gradient (<40 mm Hg) despite a low valve area. These latter types can present as either low ejection fraction with low-gradient AS (stage D2) or normal ejection fraction with low-gradient AS (stage D3). Determining the true severity of disease within these categories has proved difficult. In this review we illustrate both traditional and novel techniques that can be used for further valvular assessment. We also propose a simple algorithm that can be used to evaluate low-gradient AS.

A novel echocardiographic hemodynamic index for predicting outcome of aortic stenosis patients following transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Objective

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) reduces left ventricular (LV) afterload and improves prognosis in aortic stenosis (AS) patients. However, LV afterload consists of both valvular and arterial loads, and the benefits of TAVR may be attenuated if the arterial load dominates. We proposed a new hemodynamic index, the Relative Valve Load (RVL), a ratio of mean gradient (MG) and valvuloarterial impedance (Zva), to describe the relative contribution of the valvular load to the global LV load, and examined whether RVL predicted patient outcome following TAVR.

Methods

A total of 258 patients with symptomatic severe AS (indexed aortic valve area (AVA)<0.6cm²/m², AR≤2+) underwent successful TAVR at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute and had clinical follow-up to 1-year post-TAVR. Pre-TAVR MG, AVA, percent stroke work loss (%SWL), Zva and RVL were measured by echocardiography. The primary endpoint was all cause mortality at 1-year post TAVR.

Results

There were 53 deaths (20.5%) at 1-year. RVL≤7.95ml/m² had a sensitivity of 60.4% and specificity of 75.1% for identifying all cause mortality at 1-year post-TAVR and provided better specificity than MG<40 mmHg, AVA>0.75cm², %SWL≤25% and Zva>5mmHg/ml/m² despite equivalent or better sensitivity. In multivariable Cox analysis, RVL≤7.95ml/m² was an independent predictor of all cause mortality (HR 3.2, CI 1.8–5.9; p<0.0001). RVL≤7.95ml/m² was predictive of all cause mortality in both low flow and normal flow severe AS.

Conclusions

RVL is a strong predictor of all-cause mortality in severe AS patients undergoing TAVR. A pre-procedural RVL≤7.95ml/m² identifies AS patients at increased risk of death despite TAVR and may assist with decision making on the benefits of TAVR.

The Pivotal Role of Imaging in TAVR Procedures

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is underpinned by an array of imaging techniques designed to not only select an appropriately sized implant but also to identify potential obstacles to procedural success. This review presents currently important aspects of TAVR imaging, describing the salient features of each modality as well as recent developments in the field.

RECENT FINDINGS

The latest data on TAVR outcomes reflects the increasing experience of operators and the significant role of pre-procedural imaging. Debate continues as to which modality sizes the aortic annulus most accurately, 3D transoesophageal echocardiography (TEE) or MDCT, as well as to whether the merits of real-time peri-procedural 3D imaging guidance outweigh the possible adverse consequences of general anaesthesia which is requisite for intraprocedural 3D TEE. TAVR is now largely based on pre-acquired roadmaps of the truncal vasculature and intense pre-procedural planning. TEE and Multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) have been shown to perform similarly in annulus sizing. However, given the complexity of many TAVR patients and the importance of identifying the most suitable pathway to the valve as well as any potentially confounding other structural or functional heart disease, both modalities remain relevant in current TAVR.

Echocardiographic 3D-guided 2D planimetry in quantifying left-sided valvular heart disease

Echocardiographic 3D-guided 2D planimetry can improve the accuracy of valvular disease assessment. Acquisition of 3D pyramidal dataset allows subsequent multiplanar reconstruction with accurate orthogonal plane alignment to obtain the correct borders of an anatomic orifice or flow area. Studies examining the 3D-guided 2D planimetry approach in left-sided valvular heart disease were identified and reviewed. The strongest evidence exists for estimating mitral valve area in patients with rheumatic mitral valve stenosis and vena contracta area in patients with mitral regurgitation (both primary and secondary). 3D-guided approach showed excellent feasibility and reproducibility in most studies, as well as time efficiency and good correlation with reference and comparator methods. Therefore, 3D-guided 2D planimetry can be used as an important clinical tool in quantifying left-sided valvular heart disease, especially mitral valve disorders.

ACC/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/HRS/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR/STS 2017 Appropriate Use Criteria for Multimodality Imaging in Valvular Heart Disease : A Report of the American College of Cardiology Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Rhythm Society, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons

This document is 1 of 2 companion appropriate use criteria (AUC) documents developed by the American College of Cardiology, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Rhythm Society, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. This document addresses the evaluation and use of multimodality imaging in the diagnosis and management of valvular heart disease, whereas the second, companion document addresses this topic with regard to structural heart disease. Although there is clinical overlap, the documents addressing valvular and structural heart disease are published separately, albeit with a common structure. The goal of the companion AUC documents is to provide a comprehensive resource for multimodality imaging in the context of valvular and structural heart disease, encompassing multiple imaging modalities.Using standardized methodology, the clinical scenarios (indications) were developed by a diverse writing group to represent patient presentations encountered in everyday practice and included common applications and anticipated uses. Where appropriate, the scenarios were developed on the basis of the most current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines.A separate, independent rating panel scored the 92 clinical scenarios in this document on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that a modality is considered appropriate for the clinical scenario presented. Midrange scores of 4 to 6 indicate that a modality may be appropriate for the clinical scenario, and scores of 1 to 3 indicate that a modality is considered rarely appropriate for the clinical scenario.The primary objective of the AUC is to provide a framework for the assessment of these scenarios by practices that will improve and standardize physician decision making. AUC publications reflect an ongoing effort by the American College of Cardiology to critically and systematically create, review, and categorize clinical situations where diagnostic tests and procedures are utilized by physicians caring for patients with cardiovascular diseases. The process is based on the current understanding of the technical capabilities of the imaging modalities examined.

Imaging for planning of transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has proven to be the standard of care for patients with prohibitive and high operative risk; today, it is considered a reasonable alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. As indications for TAVI move toward patients at lower risk, safety aspects are becoming even more important. Furthermore, adequate patient selection is key for predictable procedural success with minimal complications, translating into an optimal clinical outcome. Decisions on valve type and size as well as on the access route are based on multimodality imaging including echocardiography, multislice computed tomography, and cardiac catheterization with peripheral angiography. This combination of multiple imaging modalities provides the best picture of a patient's anatomical and physiological suitability for the TAVI procedure. Yet, the reliability of preprocedural imaging is influenced by the quality of the images, which should be as high as possible, and both image acquisition and interpretation should be performed in a standardized manner. This article provides a concise overview of standardized multimodality imaging for the preprocedural planning and assessment of patients undergoing TAVI.

[Low-flow low-gradient aortic valve stenosis : Current evidence]

Many patients with severe aortic stenosis have a "low-flow, low-gradient" aortic stenosis. The management of these patients can be quite difficult, as these patients often show impairment of the left ventricle, which can lead to false measurements of the severity of stenosis and also leads to a higher risk during aortic valve replacement. More diagnostic tools than only standard echocardiography are needed to correctly differentiate true severe aortic stenosis from pseudo severe aortic stenosis.