Orifice variability of the stenotic aortic valve: evaluation before and after balloon aortic valvuloplasty

Aortic stenosis

In developed countries, aortic stenosis is the most prevalent of all valvular heart diseases. A manifestation of ageing, the disorder is becoming more frequent as the average age of the population increases. Symptomatic severe disease is universally fatal if left untreated yet is consistent with a typical lifespan when mechanical relief of the stenosis is provided in a timely fashion. Management of mild disease, severe asymptomatic disease, and far advanced disease, and the effect of new percutaneous treatments, provide both controversy and exciting promise to care of patients with aortic stenosis. We discuss these issues in this Review.

Planimetric Assessment of Anatomic Valve Area Overestimates Effective Orifice Area in Bicuspid Aortic Stenosis

BACKGROUND

Although the continuity equation remains the noninvasive standard, planimetry using transesophageal echocardiography is often used to assess valve area for patients with aortic stenosis (AS). Not uncommonly, however, anatomic valve area (AVAA) obtained by planimetry overestimates continuity-derived effective valve area (AVAE) in bicuspid AS.

METHODS

Transthoracic Doppler and transesophageal echocardiography were performed to obtain AVAE and AVAA in 31 patients with bicuspid AS (age 61 +/- 11 years) and 22 patients with degenerative tricuspid AS (age 71 +/- 13 years). Aortic root and left ventricular outflow tract dimensions and the directional angle of the stenotic jet were assessed in all patients. Using these data, a computational fluid dynamics model was constructed to test the effect of these variables in determining the relationship between AVAE and AVAA.

RESULTS

For patients with tricuspid AS, the correlation between AVAA (1.15 +/- 0.36 cm2) and AVAE (1.13 +/- 0.46 cm2) was excellent (r = 0.91, P < .001, Delta = 0.02 +/- 0.21 cm2). However, AVAA was significantly larger (1.19 +/- 0.35 cm2) than AVAE (0.89 +/- 0.29 cm2) in the bicuspid AS group (r = 0.71, P < .001, Delta = 0.29 +/- 0.25 cm2). Computer simulation demonstrated that the observed discrepancy related to jet eccentricity.

CONCLUSION

For a given anatomic orifice, functional severity tends to be greater in bicuspid AS than in tricuspid AS. This appears to be primarily related to greater jet eccentricity and less pressure recovery.

Variation of anatomic valve area during ejection in patients with valvular aortic stenosis evaluated by two-dimensional echocardiographic planimetry: comparison with traditional Doppler data

OBJECTIVES

Flow variations can affect valve-area calculation in aortic stenosis and lead to inaccuracies in the evaluation of the stenosis. Knowing that transvalvular flow varies normally within one beat, we designed this study to assess the response of the valve to intrabeat variation of flow during systole. Results were compared with flow-derived measurements.

BACKGROUND

Technological improvements now allow us to evaluate aortic valve area directly by short axis planimetry. This offers the possibility to perform serial planimetries during one ejection phase and analyze the intrabeat dynamic behavior of the stenotic-aortic valve and compare these measurements with flow-derived measurements.

METHODS

Forty echocardiograms displaying different degrees of aortic stenosis were analyzed by frame-by-frame planimetry of the valve area from onset of opening to complete closure. Maximal-mean area, opening and closing rates and ejection times were obtained and compared with Doppler-derived data.

RESULTS

Valve area varied during ejection. Stenotic valves opened and closed more slowly than normals and remained maximally open for a shorter period. Mean area by Doppler data corresponded more closely to maximal than to mean-planimetered area. Duration of flow was shorter than valve opening in severely stenotic valves. Discrepancies between Doppler-derived and two-dimensional (2D) measurements decreased in less stenotic valves.

CONCLUSIONS

Our observations reveal striking differences between the dynamics of normal and stenotic valves. Surprisingly, Doppler-derived mean-valve area correlated better with maximal-anatomic area than with mean-anatomic area in patients with aortic stenosis. Discrepancies between duration of flow and valve opening could explain this phenomenon.

Planimetry of aortic valve area using multiplane transoesophageal echocardiography is not a reliable method for assessing severity of aortic stenosis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the reliability of aortic valve area planimetry by multiplane transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE) in aortic stenosis.

DESIGN

Study of the diagnostic value of aortic valve area planimetry using multiplane TOE, compared with catheterisation and the continuity equation, both being considered as criterion standards.

SETTING

University hospital.

PATIENTS

49 consecutive patients (29 male, 20 female, aged 44 to 82 years, average 66.6 (SD 8.5)), referred for haemodynamic evaluation of an aortic stenosis, were enrolled in a prospective study. From this sample, 37 patients were eligible for the final analysis.

METHODS

Transthoracic and multiplane transoesophageal echocardiograms were performed within 24 hours before catheterisation. At transthoracic echo, aortic valve area was calculated by the continuity equation. At TOE, the image of the aortic valve opening was obtained with a 30-65 degrees rotation of the transducer. Numerical dynamic images were stored on optical discs for off-line analysis and were reviewed by two blinded observers. Catheterisation was performed in all cases and aortic valve area was calculated by the Gorlin formula.

RESULTS

Feasibility of the method was 92% (48/52). The agreement between aortic valve area measured at TOE (mean 0.88 (SD 0.35) cm2) and at catheterisation (0.79 (0.24) cm2) was very poor. The same discrepancies were found between TOE and the continuity equation (0.72 (0.26) cm2). TOE planimetry overestimated aortic valve area determined by the two other methods. Predictive positive and negative values of planimetry to detect aortic valve area < 0.75 cm2 were 62% (10/16) and 43% (9/21) respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Planimetry of aortic valve area by TOE is difficult and less accurate than the continuity equation for assessing the severity of aortic stenosis.

Simultaneous determination of aortic valve area by the Gorlin formula and by transesophageal echocardiography under different transvalvular flow conditions. Evidence that anatomic aortic valve area does not change with variations in flow in aortic stenosis

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of changes in flow on aortic valve area (AVA) as measured by the Gorlin formula and transesophageal echocardiographic (TEE) planimetry.

BACKGROUND

The meaning of flow-related changes in AVA calculations using the Gorlin formula in patients with aortic stenosis remains controversial. It has been suggested that flow dependence of the calculated area could be due to a true widening of the orifice as flow increases or to a disproportionate flow dependence of the formula itself. Alternatively, anatomic AVA can be measured by direct planimetry of the valve orifice with TEE.

METHODS

Simultaneous measurement of the planimetered and Gorlin valve area was performed intraoperatively under different hemodynamic conditions in 11 patients. Left ventricular and ascending aortic pressures were measured simultaneously after transventricular and aortic punctures. Changes in flow were induced by dobutamine infusion. Using multiplane TEE, AVA was planimetered at the level of the leaflet tips in the short-axis view.

RESULTS

Overall, cardiac output, stroke volume and transvalvular volume flow rate ranged from 2.5 to 7.3 liters/min, from 43 to 86 ml and from 102 to 306 ml/min, respectively. During dobutamine infusion, cardiac-output increased by 42% and mean aortic valve gradient by 54%. When minimal flow was compared with maximal flow, the Gorlin area varied from (mean +/- SD) 0.44 +/- 0.12 to 0.60 +/- 0.14 cm2 (p < 0.005). The mean change in Gorlin area under different flow rates was 36 +/- 32%. Despite these changes, there was no significant change in the planimetered area when minimal flow was compared with maximal flow. The mean difference in planimetered area under different flow rates was 0.002 +/- 0.01 cm2 (p = 0.86).

CONCLUSIONS

By simultaneous determination of Gorlin formula and TEE planimetry valve areas, we showed that acute changes in transvalvular volume flow substantially altered valve area calculated by the Gorlin formula but did not result in significant alterations of the anatomic valve area in aortic stenosis. These results suggest that the flow-related variation in the Gorlin AVA is due to a disproportionate flow dependence of the formula itself and not a true change in valve area.

Changes in effective aortic valve area during ejection in adults with aortic stenosis

Measurements of valve orifice area in aortic stenosis are based on the assumption that orifice area remains constant throughout ejection and is independent of transvalvular gradients and flow. Recent studies, however, have suggested that the calculated valve area of calcific aortic stenosis may change in different flow conditions. Therefore, we tested the hypothesis that in vivo effective orifice area of a stenotic aortic valve changes continuously during ejection, which would make a single area measurement a potentially inadequate indicator of the severity of the stenosis. Doppler measurements of flow velocity in the ascending aorta and in the left ventricular outflow tract at peak velocity, at half-peak velocity during acceleration (midacceleration), and at half-peak velocity during deceleration (mid-deceleration) were obtained in 26 patients with aortic stenosis (mean gradient 50 +/- 19 mm Hg and effective aortic orifice are 0.7 +/- 0.3 dcm2) and in 14 normal subjects of similar age and gender, to calculate instantaneous effective aortic orifice area at midacceleration, at peak velocity and at mid-deceleration. In the 26 patients with aortic stenosis, aortic valve area at midacceleration was 84 +/- 15% of valve area at peak velocity (p < 0.0001), and valve area at mid-deceleration was 113 +/- 17% of that measured at peak velocity (p < 0.01). Conversely, in normal subjects, aortic valve area remained constant during ejection and was 97 +/- 5% and 99 +/- 6% of valve area at peak velocity, respectively, at midacceleration and mid-deceleration (p > 0.05). In addition, in patients with aortic stenosis the percentage of change in effective aortic valve area from midacceleration to mid-deceleration varied widely, from -17% to +49% (mean change +26 +/- 14%). There was no relation between percentage of change in effective valve area and mean transaortic gradient (r = 0.05; p = 0.30) or effective valve area at peak velocity (r = -0.11; p = 0.14). Our results indicate that effective aortic valve area continues to change during ejection in patients with aortic stenosis, and that the magnitude of this change is independent of the usual indexes of severity of the stenosis. Conversely, effective aortic valve area remains constant during ejection in normal subjects.

Hemodynamic assessment of patients with low-flow, low-gradient valvular aortic stenosis

In aortic stenosis (AS), conventional indexes of severity vary with changes in transvalvular flow. It is important to determine the true severity of obstruction because AS in the presence of low cardiac output and low gradient is associated with high mortality during aortic valve replacement. This study compares 3 indexes of stenosis severity at different transvalvular flow rates in patients with low-flow, low-gradient critical AS. Eight patients with critical AS (valve area < or = 0.7 cm2), low cardiac output (< 4.0 L/min), and low mean transvalvular gradient (< or = 40 mm Hg) underwent hemodynamic assessment at baseline, after transvalvular flow was augmented with dobutamine, and after the valve opening was increased with percutaneous balloon aortic valvuloplasty. Severity of obstruction was assessed using 3 different measures: Gorlin formula calculated valve area, valvular resistance, and percentage left ventricular stroke work loss. Dobutamine infusion increased cardiac output by 35% and mean transvalvular gradient by 27%. The mean Gorlin formula calculated aortic valve area increased from 0.5 to 0.6 cm2 (p = 0.002). Percentage left ventricular stroke work loss increased from 23% to 28% (p = 0.03). Valve resistance was unchanged by dobutamine (350 to 310 dynes X sec X cm(-5); p = NS). Balloon valvuloplasty increased cardiac output 13% and decreased the gradient 31%; this resulted in an increase in the calculated valve area from 0.6 to 0.9 cm2 (p = 0.001). Percentage left ventricular stroke work loss decreased from 28% to 20% (p = 0.002), and valve resistance decreased from 310 to 181 dynes X sec X cm(-5) (p = 0.001) after valvuloplasty. We conclude that in patients with low-flow, low-gradient critical AS, valve resistance is the most flow-independent measure of severity of stenosis. All measures improve with percutaneous balloon aortic valvuloplasty.

Effects of variations in flow on aortic valve area in aortic stenosis based on in vivo planimetry of aortic valve area by multiplane transesophageal echocardiography

This study provides evidence that acute changes in stroke volume and cardiac output do not result in significant alterations in the anatomic AVA measured with multiplane TEE in patients with AS of moderate or severe degree. Thus, TEE could be useful in the assessment of severity of AS in both low- and high-output states.

Accuracy of aortic stenosis severity assessment by Doppler echocardiography: importance of image quality

The aim of the present study was to investigate which factors could influence the accuracy of aortic stenosis severity assessment by Doppler echocardiography in an unselected population. Doppler echocardiographic determination of mean transvalvular pressure gradient and aortic valve area by continuity equation was performed in 101 patients before catheterization. According to the catheterization data, aortic stenosis was classified into 2 categories: mild to moderate (orifice area [Gorlin formula] > 0.75 cm2, mean transvalvular gradient < 50 mmHg) and severe (orifice area < or = 0.75 cm2, mean transvalvular gradient > or = 50 mmHg). The influence of eight factors on the absolute difference in aortic valve area and mean transvalvular pressure gradient and on the concordant classification in the same category by both methods was investigated.

RESULTS

By multivariate analysis, the absolute difference in aortic valve area by both methods was significantly associated with poor image quality, absolute difference between mean catheterization and Doppler transvalvular gradient and inversely related to body mass index. Absolute difference in mean transvalvular gradients by both methods was significantly associated only with image quality. Poor image quality emerged as the only significant factor influencing the concordant classification between invasive and noninvasive studies according to orifice area (but not according to transvalvular pressure gradient).

CONCLUSION

Echographic image quality significantly influences the accuracy of Doppler echocardiographic determination of aortic valve area and, to a lesser extent, of transvalvular pressure gradient. Therefore, the mere noninvasive approach is not suitable to every consecutive patient with aortic stenosis. Qualifications concerning overall image quality should identify patients most likely to benefit from catheterization.

Comparison of valvular resistance, stroke work loss, and Gorlin valve area for quantification of aortic stenosis. An in vitro study in a pulsatile aortic flow model

BACKGROUND

Valvular resistance and stroke work loss have been proposed as alternative measures of stenotic valvular lesions that may be less flow dependent and, thus, superior over valve area calculations for the quantification of aortic stenosis. The present in vitro study was designed to compare the impacts of valvular resistance, stroke work loss, and Gorlin valve area as hemodynamic indexes of aortic stenosis.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In a pulsatile aortic flow model, rigid stenotic orifices in varying sizes (0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 cm2) and geometry were studied under different hemodynamic conditions. Ventricular and aortic pressures were measured to determine the mean systolic ventricular pressure (LVSPm) and the transstenotic pressure gradient (delta Pm). Transvalvular flow (Fm) was assessed with an electromagnetic flowmeter. Valvular resistance [VR = 1333.(delta Pm/Fm)] and stroke work loss [SWL = 100.(delta Pm/LVSPm)] were calculated and compared with aortic valve area [AVA = Fm/(50 square root of delta Pm)]. The measurements were performed for a large range of transvalvular flows. At low-flow states, flow augmentation (100-->200 mL/s) increased calculated valvular resistance between 21% (2.0 cm2 orifice) and 66% (0.5-cm2 orifice). Stroke work loss demonstrated an increase from 43% (2.0 cm2) to 100% (1.0 cm2). In contrast, Gorlin valve area revealed only a moderate change from 29% (2.0 cm2) to 5% (0.5 cm2). At physiological flow rates, increase in transvalvular flow (200-->300 mL/s) did not alter calculated Gorlin valve area, whereas valvular resistance and stroke work loss demonstrated a continuing increase. Our experimental results were adopted to interpret the results of three clinical studies in aortic stenosis. The flow-dependent increase of Gorlin valve area, which was found in the cited clinical studies, can be elucidated as true further opening of the stenotic valve but not as a calculation error due to the Gorlin formula.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the physiological range of flow, calculated aortic valve area was less dependent on hemodynamic conditions than were valvular resistance and stroke work loss, which varied as a function of flow. Thus, for the assessment of the severity of aortic stenosis, the Gorlin valve area is superior over valvular resistance and stroke work loss, which must be indexed for flow to adequately quantify the hemodynamic severity of the obstruction.

Contribution of mitral valve reserve capacity to sustained symptomatic improvement after balloon valvulotomy in mitral stenosis: implications for restenosis

OBJECTIVES

To explain the discrepancy between the symptomatic status of patients and the hemodynamically calculated mitral valve area during long-term follow-up after mitral balloon valvulotomy, mitral valve orifice variability after dobutamine infusion was investigated in two groups of patients.

BACKGROUND

A significant increase in aortic valve area with increased aortic transvalvular flow has been reported in patients with calcific aortic stenosis after aortic balloon valvulotomy. A similar phenomenon with regard to the mitral valve has not been studied in detail.

METHODS

Group 1 comprised 10 patients (mean age 33 +/- 9 years) with untreated mitral stenosis. Group 2 comprised 29 consecutive patients (mean age 32 +/- 7 years) who underwent successful percutaneous mitral balloon valvulotomy 13 +/- 2 months before the study.

RESULTS

After dobutamine infusion, heart rate and cardiac index increased significantly in both groups. The mean pulmonary artery pressure, mitral valve gradient and pulmonary capillary pressure remained unchanged in Group 2 but increased significantly in Group 1. The mean mitral valve area was significantly larger in Group 2 after dobutamine infusion than at baseline (1.9 +/- 0.5 vs. 2.4 +/- 0.6 cm2, p < 0.0001) but was unchanged in Group 1 (1.2 +/- 0.2 vs. 1.3 +/- 0.3 cm2, p = NS). The mean mitral valve area in seven patients in Group 2 (24%) was < or = 1.5 cm2 before dobutamine infusion (1.3 +/- 0.4 cm2), which was defined as restenosis. In five of these seven patients who had minimal or no symptoms, the mitral valve area increased significantly after dobutamine infusion (1.3 +/- 0.1 vs. 1.9 +/- 0.1 cm2). In the other two patients who were symptomatic, the mitral valve area did not change after dobutamine infusion. These two patients were identified as having "true" restenosis, and redilation of the mitral valve was performed in both.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients who underwent mitral balloon valvulotomy, increased mitral valve reserve capacity contributed to symptomatic improvement on long-term follow-up. Dobutamine infusion may be helpful in detecting clinically significant restenosis.

Effect of exercise on valvular resistance in patients with mitral stenosis

OBJECTIVES

This exercise study assessed the relation between valvular resistance and flow in patients with mitral stenosis.

BACKGROUND

Valvular resistance has been proposed as an alternative measure of stenotic valvular lesions, which is speculated to remain stable under changing hemodynamic conditions.

METHODS

In 35 of 40 patients with pure or predominant mitral stenosis, continuous wave Doppler measurements of the mitral stenotic jet were possible at rest and during supine bicycle ergometry. Simultaneously, transvalvular flow was assessed by thermodilution technique. For calculation of valvular resistance, the mean mitral valve pressure gradient was determined according to the simplified Bernoulli equation and divided by transvalvular flow. Additionally, effective mitral valve area was calculated according to the continuity equation method, dividing flow by the mean diastolic flow velocity.

RESULTS

Valvular resistance was 65 +/- 32 dynes.s.cm-5 at rest and increased to 82 +/- 43 dynes.s.cm-5 at 25 W (p < 0.001). The most prominent increase in valvular resistance (rest to 25 W 63 +/- 28 to 95 +/- 48 dynes.s.cm-5, p < 0.001) was found in those patients who had no or only a moderate (< 20%) change in effective mitral valve area. In contrast, valvular resistance remained constant (67 +/- 36 vs. 70 +/- 32 dynes.s.cm-5) in patients with a significant (> or = 20%) increase in mitral valve area with exercise.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with mitral stenosis, the exercise-induced changes in valvular resistance are heterogeneous. This is the result of the variable response of mitral valve area to an increase in flow. In the individual patient, mitral valve area can significantly increase, a factor that has to be taken into account when interpreting the hemodynamic relevance of the obstruction. Calculated valvular resistance is flow dependent and has no advantage over valve area calculations for quantifying mitral stenosis.

Effects of dobutamine on Gorlin and continuity equation valve areas and valve resistance in valvular aortic stenosis

Previous studies demonstrated changes in aortic valve area calculated by the Gorlin equation under conditions of varying transvalvular flow in patients with valvular aortic stenosis (AS). To distinguish between flow-dependence of the Gorlin formula and changes in actual orifice area, the Gorlin valve area and 2 other measures of severity of AS, continuity equation valve area and valve resistance, were calculated under 2 flow conditions in 12 patients with AS. Transvalvular flow rate was varied by administration of dobutamine. During dobutamine infusion, right atrial and left ventricular end-diastolic pressures decreased, left ventricular peak systolic pressure and stroke volume increased, and systolic arterial pressure did not change. Heart rate increased by 19%, cardiac output by 38% and mean aortic valve gradient by 25%. The Gorlin valve area increased in all 12 patients by 0.03 to 0.30 cm2. The average Gorlin valve area increased from 0.67 +/- 0.05 to 0.79 +/- 0.06 cm2 (p < 0.001). In contrast, the continuity equation valve area (calculated in a subset of 6 patients) and valve resistance did not change with dobutamine. The data support the conclusion that flow-dependence of the Gorlin aortic valve area, rather than an increase in actual orifice area, is responsible for the finding that greater valve areas are calculated at greater transvalvular flow rates. Valve resistance is a less flow-dependent means of assessing severity of AS.

Beat-by-beat aortic valve area measurements indicate constant orifice area in aortic stenosis: analysis of Doppler data with varying RR intervals

Gorlin formula calculation of aortic valve area suggests that orifice area increases in patients with aortic stenosis with rising cardiac output. Evidence that aortic orifice area varies was sought in patients with aortic stenosis by analyzing Doppler data beat by beat versus RR interval in 22 patients with spontaneous RR variability. Stroke volume increased in all patients from minimum to maximum RR interval by 129% +/- 19%. Over the same range of RR intervals, assessment of aortic valve area by (A) simultaneous inner and outer continuous wave Doppler signals, or (B) nonsimultaneous RR-matched pulsed wave Doppler from the left ventricular outflow tract and continuous wave Doppler from the aortic valve failed to suggest an increase in aortic valve area. A positive relationship between aortic valve area and RR interval was not consistently observed with the exception of seven out of eight patients with mild to moderate (pulsed wave Doppler/continuous wave Doppler time velocity integral ratio of 0.3 to 0.7) aortic stenosis (p less than 0.05). Beat-by-beat measurements of aortic valve orifice area using Doppler techniques do not suggest that the aortic stenosis orifice varies over a wide range of RR intervals and stroke volumes.

Effect of exercise on indices of valvular aortic stenosis

Changes in the physiologic state of the patient may affect indices of valvular aortic stenosis. We determined the effects of supine exercise on the Gorlin valve area, Cannon valve area, aortic valve resistance, and a modified stroke work loss index in 80 patients with aortic stenosis. Exercise caused a significant increase in the Gorlin and Cannon valve area, while work loss and valve resistance decreased significantly. The average percent change in work loss, 12.2%, was lower than the other indices (P less than 0.02), i.e., 15.3% for valve resistance, 18.6% for the Gorlin area, and 19.3% for the Cannon area. The correlation between the rest and exercise measurements was highest for work loss (r = 0.94), compared to 0.93, 0.88, and 0.89 for the other 3 indices, respectively. In patients with a Gorlin area below 1 cm2, exercise caused a significant decrease in work loss, but not Cannon area or valve resistance. However, the percent change was significantly lower and the correlation was better with the work loss index. We conclude that the work loss index is less affected by supine exercise than other indices of aortic stenosis.