Recovery of Long-Axis Left Ventricular Function after Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis

Alterations in Layer-Specific Left Ventricular Global Longitudinal and Circumferential Strain in Patients With Aortic Stenosis: A Comparison of Aortic Valve Replacement versus Conservative Management Over a 12-Month Period

BACKGROUND

Impairment in left ventricular (LV) systolic strain in aortic stenosis (AS) is well documented. However, alterations in layer-specific LV global longitudinal strain (GLS) and global circumferential strain (GCS) and their recovery following surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) have not been established. The aim of this study was to examine layer-specific changes in GLS and GCS in patients with AS undergoing AVR and compare these patients with those managed conservatively over 12 months.

METHODS

Eighty-six patients (mean age, 68.8 ± 12 years; 60 men) with AS (19 mild, 15 moderate, and 52 severe) were prospectively recruited. Patients with coronary disease or other significant valvular disease were excluded. Forty patients (46.5%) with severe AS underwent AVR. All patients underwent baseline echocardiography. Patients managed conservatively underwent follow-up echocardiography at 12 months. Patients undergoing AVR underwent follow-up echocardiography at 1 week and 3, 6, and 12 months after AVR.

RESULTS

There was worsening in subendocardial but not subepicardial or transmural GLS even in mild AS (-20.9 ± 1.0% vs -20.6 ± 0.8%, P = .012). In moderate AS, worsening in subendocardial (-19.6 ± 0.9% vs -18.2 ± 1.5%, P = .003), subepicardial (-14.9 ± 1.0% vs -13.8 ± 1.2%, P = .004), and transmural (-17.1 ± 0.9% vs -15.8 ± 1.3%, P = .03) GLS and a trend toward significant worsening in subendocardial GCS (-29.8 ± 5.16% vs -27.5 ± 5%, P = .054) were seen. Conservatively managed patients with severe AS had significant worsening in subendocardial (-16.1 ± 1.6% vs -13.9 ± 2.6%, P = .021), subepicardial (-11.6 ± 1.1% vs -10.1 ± 2.1%, P = .027), and transmural (-13.6 ± 1.3% vs -11.8 ± 2.3%, P = .02) GLS and subendocardial (-24.9 ± 3.6% vs -20.8 ± 4.5%, P = .002) and transmural (-16.9 ± 1.7% vs -14.3 ± 3.5%, P = .04) GCS on follow-up. Patients after AVR demonstrated significant improvement in GLS (from 3 months) and GCS (from 6 months) in both myocardial layers.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with AS managed conservatively had worsening of GLS over 12 months despite preserved LV ejection fraction, detected earliest in the subendocardial layer. GCS became progressively impaired in moderate and severe AS. Improvement in LV strain after AVR was seen earlier with GLS (from 3 months) than with GCS (from 6 months) in both myocardial layers.

Myocardial reverse remodeling: how far can we rewind?

Heart failure (HF) is a systemic disease that can be divided into HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). HFpEF accounts for over 50% of all HF patients and is typically associated with high prevalence of several comorbidities, including hypertension, diabetes mellitus, pulmonary hypertension, obesity, and atrial fibrillation. Myocardial remodeling occurs both in HFrEF and HFpEF and it involves changes in cardiac structure, myocardial composition, and myocyte deformation and multiple biochemical and molecular alterations that impact heart function and its reserve capacity. Understanding the features of myocardial remodeling has become a major objective for limiting or reversing its progression, the latter known as reverse remodeling (RR). Research on HFrEF RR process is broader and has delivered effective therapeutic strategies, which have been employed for some decades. However, the RR process in HFpEF is less clear partly due to the lack of information on HFpEF pathophysiology and to the long list of failed standard HF therapeutics strategies in these patient's outcomes. Nevertheless, new proteins, protein-protein interactions, and signaling pathways are being explored as potential new targets for HFpEF remodeling and RR. Here, we review recent translational and clinical research in HFpEF myocardial remodeling to provide an overview on the most important features of RR, comparing HFpEF with HFrEF conditions.

Improvement in left ventricular function assessed by tissue Doppler imaging after aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis

INTRODUCTION

The effects of reduction of left ventricular (LV) systemic afterload following aortic valve replacement (AVR) for severe aortic valve stenosis (AS) were investigated, using echocardiography and tissue Doppler imaging (TDI).

METHODS

We compared the preoperative and postoperative echocardiographic assessments of 23 patients with severe AS who had undergone isolated AVR (n = 13) or concomitant AVR with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) (n = 10). Conventional echocardiographic evaluations and TDI at the lateral mitral annulus were performed.

RESULTS

Echocardiography was performed at a median of 120 (interquartile range: 66-141) days after AVR. There was significant reduction in aortic transvalvular mean pressure gradient after AVR. Although LV dimensions, mass and ejection fraction remained unchanged, LV diastolic and systolic functions improved (as observed on TDI). Early diastolic (E'), late diastolic (A') and systolic (S') mitral annular velocities increased significantly (p < 0.05). There was significant improvement in TDI-derived parameters among the patients who had isolated AVR, while among the patients who had concomitant AVR with CABG, only S' had significant improvement (p = 0.028).

CONCLUSION

TDI was able to detect improvements in LV systolic and diastolic function after AVR for severe AS. There was less improvement in the TDI-derived diastolic parameters among patients who underwent concomitant AVR with CABG than among patients who underwent isolated AVR.

Global longitudinal strain is a strong independent predictor of all-cause mortality in patients with aortic stenosis

AIMS

To assess the capacity of global longitudinal strain (GLS) in patients with aortic stenosis (AS) to (i) detect the subclinical left ventricular (LV) dysfunction [LV ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥50% patients]; (ii) predict all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (all patients), and (iii) provide incremental prognostic information over current risk markers.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients with AS (n = 146) and age-matched controls (n = 12) underwent baseline echocardiography to assess AS severity, conventional LV parameters and GLS via speckle tracking echocardiography. Baseline demographics, symptom severity class and comorbidities were recorded. Outcomes were identified via hospital record review and subject/physician interview. The mean age was 75 ± 11, 62% were male. The baseline aortic valve (AV) area was 1.0 ± 0.4 cm(2) and LVEF was 59 ± 11%. In patients with a normal LVEF (n = 122), the baseline GLS was controls -21 ± 2%, mild AS -18 ± 3%, moderate AS -17 ± 3% and severe AS -15 ± 3% (P< 0.001). GLS correlated with the LV mass index, LVEF, AS severity, and symptom class (P< 0.05). During a median follow-up of 2.1 (inter-quartile range: 1.8-2.4) years, there were 20 deaths and 101 MACE. Unadjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for GLS (per %) were all-cause mortality (HR: 1.42, P< 0.001) and MACE (HR: 1.09, P< 0.001). After adjustment for clinical and echocardiographic variables, GLS remained a strong independent predictor of all-cause mortality (HR: 1.38, P< 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

GLS detects subclinical dysfunction and has incremental prognostic value over traditional risk markers including haemodynamic severity, symptom class, and LVEF in patients with AS. Incorporation of GLS into risk models may improve the identification of the optimal timing for AV replacement.