What are the components that contribute to variability in echocardiographic measurements in aortic stenosis?

INTRODUCTION Echocardiography is the standard clinical approach for quantification of the severity of aortic stenosis (AS). A comprehensive examination of its overall reproducibility and the simultaneous estimation of its variance components by multiple operators, readers, probe applications, and beats have not been undertaken. METHOD AND RESULTS Twenty-seven subjects with AS were scanned over 7 months in the echo-department by a median of 3 different operators. From each patient and each operator multiple runs of beats from multiple probe positions were stored for later analysis by multiple readers. The coefficient of variation was 13.3%, 15.9%, 17.6%, and 20.2% for the aortic peak velocity (Vmax), and velocity time integral (VTI), and left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) Vmax and VTI respectively. The largest individual contributors to the overall variability were the beat-to-beat variability (9.0%, 9.3%, 9.5%, 9.4% respectively) and that of inability of an individual operator to precisely apply the probe to the same position twice (8.3%, 9.4%, 12.9%, 10.7% respectively). The tracing (inter-reader) and reader (inter-reader), and operator (inter-operator) contribution were less important. CONCLUSIONS Reproducibility of measurements in AS is poorer than often reported in the literature. The source of this variability does not appear, as traditionally believed, to result from a lack of training or operator and reader specific factors. Rather the unavoidable beat-to-beat biological variability, and the inherent impossibility of applying the ultrasound probe in exactly the same position each time are the largest contributors. Consequently, guidelines suggesting greater standardisation of procedures and further training for sonographers are unlikely to result in an improvement in precision. Clinicians themselves should be wary of relying on even three-beat averages as their expected coefficient of variance is 10.3% for the peak velocity at the aortic valve.

Balloon Aortic Valvuloplasty as Bridge-to-Decision in High Risk Patients with Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis

Background. A sizable group of patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) can undergo neither surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) nor transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) because of clinical contraindications. The aim of this study was to assess the potential role of balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) as a “bridge-to-decision” in selected patients with severe AS and potentially reversible contraindications to definitive treatment. Methods. We retrospectively enrolled 645 patients who underwent first BAV at our Institution between July 2007 and December 2012. Of these, the 202 patients (31.2%) who underwent BAV as bridge-to-decision (BTD) requiring clinical re-evaluation represented our study population. BTD patients were further subdivided in 5 groups: low left ventricular ejection fraction; mitral regurgitation grade ≥3; frailty; hemodynamic instability; comorbidity. The main objective of the study was to evaluate how BAV influenced the final treatment strategy in the whole BTD group and in its single specific subgroups. Results. Mean logistic EuroSCORE was 23.5±15.3%, mean age was 81±7 years. Mean transaortic gradient decreased from 47±17 mmHg to 33±14 mmHg. Of the 193 patients with BTD-BAV who received a second heart team evaluation, 72.5% were finally deemed eligible for definitive treatment (25.4%for AVR; 47.2% for TAVI): respectively, 96.7% of patients with left ventricular ejection fraction recovery; 70.5% of patients with mitral regurgitation reduction; 75.7% of patients who underwent BAV in clinical hemodynamic instability; 69.2% of frail patients and 68% of patients who presented relevant comorbidities. 27.5% of the study population was deemed ineligible for definitive treatment and treated with standard therapy/repeated BAV. In-hospital mortality was 4.5%, cerebrovascular accident occurred in 1% and overall vascular complications were 4% (0.5% major; 3.5% minor). Conclusions. Balloon aortic valvuloplasty should be considered as bridge-to-decision in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis who cannot be immediate candidates for definitive percutaneous or surgical treatment.