Clinical outcomes of patients with low-flow, low-gradient, severe aortic stenosis and either preserved or reduced ejection fraction undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation

AIMS Our aim was to evaluate the invasive haemodynamic indices of high-risk symptomatic patients presenting with 'paradoxical' low-flow, low-gradient, severe aortic stenosis (AS) (PLF-LG) and low-flow, low-gradient severe AS (LEF-LG) and to compare clinical outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) among these challenging AS subgroups. METHODS AND RESULTS Of 534 symptomatic patients undergoing TAVI, 385 had a full pre-procedural right and left heart catheterization. A total of 208 patients had high-gradient severe AS [HGAS; mean gradient (MG) ≥40 mmHg], 85 had PLF-LG [MG ≤ 40 mmHg, indexed aortic valve area [iAVA] ≤0.6 cm(2) m(-2), stroke volume index ≤35 mL/m(2), ejection fraction (EF) ≥50%], and 61 had LEF-LG (MG ≤ 40 mmHg, iAVA ≤0.6 cm(2) m(-2), EF ≤40%). Compared with HGAS, PLF-LG and LEF-LG had higher systemic vascular resistances (HGAS: 1912 ± 654 vs. PLF-LG 2006 ± 586 vs. LEF-LG 2216 ± 765 dyne s m(-5), P = 0.007) but lower valvulo-arterial impedances (HGAS: 7.8 ± 2.7 vs. PLF-LG 6.9 ± 1.9 vs. LEF-LG 7.7 ± 2.5 mmHg mL(-1) m(-2), P = 0.027). At 30 days, no differences in cardiac death (6.5 vs. 4.9 vs. 6.6%, P = 0.90) or death (8.4 vs. 6.1 vs. 6.6%, P = 0.88) were observed among HGAS, PLF-LG, and LEF-LG groups, respectively. At 1 year, New York Heart Association functional improvement occurred in most surviving patients (HGAS: 69.2% vs. PLF-LG 71.7% vs. LEF-LG 89.3%, P = 0.09) and no significant differences in overall mortality were observed (17.6 vs. 20.5 vs. 24.5%, P = 0.67). Compared with HGAS, LEF-LG had a higher 1 year cardiac mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 2.45, 95% confidence interval 1.04-5.75, P = 0.04). CONCLUSION TAVI in PLF-LG or LEF-LG patients is associated with overall mortality rates comparable with HGAS patients and all groups profit symptomatically to a similar extent.

Assessment of low-flow, low-gradient, severe aortic stenosis: an invasive evaluation is required for decision making.

Low-flow, low-gradient severe aortic stenosis (AS) is characterised by a small aortic valve area (AVA) and low mean gradient (MG) secondary to a low cardiac output and may occur in patients with either a preserved or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Symptomatic patients presenting with low-flow, low-gradient severe AS have a dismal prognosis independent of baseline LVEF if managed conservatively and should therefore undergo aortic valve replacement if feasible. Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) is the first-line investigation for the assessment of AS haemodynamic severity. However, when confronted with guideline-discordant AVA (small) and MG (low) values, there are several reasons other than severe AS combined with a low cardiac output which may lead to such a situation, including erroneous measurements, small body size, inherent inconsistencies in the guidelines' criteria, prolonged ejection time and aortic pseudostenosis. The distinction between these various entities poses a diagnostic challenge. However, it is important to make a distinction because each has very different implications in terms of risk stratification and therapeutic management. In such instances, cardiac catheterisation forms an integral part of the work-up of these patients in order to confirm or refute the echocardiographic findings to guide management decisions appropriately.