JACC. Cardiovascular imaging · 2024
Prognostication and Interventional Guidance Using Acceleration-Ejection Time Ratio in Undifferentiated Paradoxical Low-Flow Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chong Adrian, Sen Jonathan, Reyaldeen Reza, Wahi Sudhir, Huynh Quan, Wang William Y S, Marwick Thomas H
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Studies in paradoxical low-flow low-gradient aortic stenosis (PLFAS) have demonstrated conflicting outcomes with variable survival advantage from aortic valve replacement (AVR). PLFAS is a heterogeneous composition of patients with uncertainty regarding true stenosis severity that continues to confound decision-making for AVR.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate the utility of the Doppler acceleration (AT) to ejection (ET) time ratio (AT:ET) for prediction of prognosis and benefit from AVR in undifferentiated PLFAS.
METHODS: Patients with echocardiographic findings of PLFAS (aortic valve area <1.0 cm2 or indexed aortic valve area <0.6 cm2/m2, mean gradient <40 mm Hg, indexed stroke volume <35 mL/m2, and left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50%) were identified and grouped according to an AT:ET cutoff of 0.35. The primary outcome was a 5-year composite of cardiac mortality or AVR. Secondary outcomes included the individual components of the primary endpoint and all-cause mortality at 5 years. Effect of AVR was analyzed in the AT:ET <0.35 and ≥0.35 groups.
RESULTS: A total of 171 PLFAS patients (median age 77.0 years, 57% women) were followed for a median of 8.9 years. AT:ET ≥0.35 was an independent predictor of the primary outcome (HR: 4.77 [95% CI: 2.94-7.75]; P < 0.001) with incremental value over standard indices of stenosis severity (net reclassification improvement: 0.57 [95% CI: 0.14-0.84]). AT:ET ≥0.35 also remained predictive of increased cardiac death (HR: 2.91 [95% CI: 1.47-5.76]; P = 0.002) and AVR (HR: 8.45 [95% CI: 4.16-17.1]; P < 0.001), respectively, following competing risk analysis. No difference in all-cause mortality was observed. AVR in the AT:ET ≥0.35 group was associated with significant reductions in 5-year cardiac (HR: 0.09 [95% CI: 0.02-0.36]; P < 0.001) and all-cause mortality (HR: 0.16 [95% CI: 0.07-0.38]; P < 0.001). No improvement in survival from AVR was demonstrated in AT:ET <0.35 patients.
CONCLUSIONS: AT:ET ≥0.35 in PLFAS predicts poorer outcomes and/or need for AVR. In undifferentiated PLFAS patients, AT:ET may have a potential role in improving patient selection for prognostic AVR.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate the utility of the Doppler acceleration (AT) to ejection (ET) time ratio (AT:ET) for prediction of prognosis and benefit from AVR in undifferentiated PLFAS.
METHODS: Patients with echocardiographic findings of PLFAS (aortic valve area <1.0 cm2 or indexed aortic valve area <0.6 cm2/m2, mean gradient <40 mm Hg, indexed stroke volume <35 mL/m2, and left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50%) were identified and grouped according to an AT:ET cutoff of 0.35. The primary outcome was a 5-year composite of cardiac mortality or AVR. Secondary outcomes included the individual components of the primary endpoint and all-cause mortality at 5 years. Effect of AVR was analyzed in the AT:ET <0.35 and ≥0.35 groups.
RESULTS: A total of 171 PLFAS patients (median age 77.0 years, 57% women) were followed for a median of 8.9 years. AT:ET ≥0.35 was an independent predictor of the primary outcome (HR: 4.77 [95% CI: 2.94-7.75]; P < 0.001) with incremental value over standard indices of stenosis severity (net reclassification improvement: 0.57 [95% CI: 0.14-0.84]). AT:ET ≥0.35 also remained predictive of increased cardiac death (HR: 2.91 [95% CI: 1.47-5.76]; P = 0.002) and AVR (HR: 8.45 [95% CI: 4.16-17.1]; P < 0.001), respectively, following competing risk analysis. No difference in all-cause mortality was observed. AVR in the AT:ET ≥0.35 group was associated with significant reductions in 5-year cardiac (HR: 0.09 [95% CI: 0.02-0.36]; P < 0.001) and all-cause mortality (HR: 0.16 [95% CI: 0.07-0.38]; P < 0.001). No improvement in survival from AVR was demonstrated in AT:ET <0.35 patients.
CONCLUSIONS: AT:ET ≥0.35 in PLFAS predicts poorer outcomes and/or need for AVR. In undifferentiated PLFAS patients, AT:ET may have a potential role in improving patient selection for prognostic AVR.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
HumansAortic Valve StenosisFemaleMaleAgedTime FactorsPredictive Value of TestsStroke VolumeAortic ValveVentricular Function, LeftAged, 80 and overRisk FactorsEchocardiography, DopplerSeverity of Illness IndexTreatment OutcomeRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentHeart Valve Prosthesis ImplantationClinical Decision-MakingHemodynamicsPatient Selection