Indicator Mild Moderate Severe

Similar documents
Early Surgery in Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis Pros and Cons

«Paradoxical» low-flow, low-gradient AS with preserved LV function: A Silent Killer

Low Gradient Severe? AS

Aortic Valve Replacement Improves Outcome in Patients with Preserved Ejection Fraction: PRO!

ECHO HAWAII. Role of Stress Echo in Valvular Heart Disease. Not only ischemia! Cardiomyopathy. Prosthetic Valve. Diastolic Dysfunction

Sténose aortique à Bas Débit et Bas Gradient

Low Gradient Severe AS: Who Qualifies for TAVR? Andrzej Boguszewski MD, FACC, FSCAI Vice Chairman, Cardiology Mid-Michigan Health Associate Professor

Low Gradient AS: Multi-Imaging Modalities

MAKING SENSE OF MODERATE GRADIENTS IN PATIENTS WITH SYMPTOMATIC AORTIC STENOSIS

Aortic Valve Stenosis: Flow and Gradient stratification and association with TAVR outcomes

Managing the Low Output Low Gradient Aortic Stenosis Patient

Aortic Stenosis: Spectrum of Disease, Low Flow/Low Gradient and Variants

Aortic Valvular Stenosis

Stage of Valvular AS. Outline 10/14/16. Low-flow and Other Challenges to the Assessment of Aortic Stenosis. Severe AS

Valvular Guidelines: The Past, the Present, the Future

Paradoxical low flow-low gradient severe aortic stenosis: where are we?

Natural History and Echo Evaluation of Aortic Stenosis

Aortic Valve Stenosis: When stress TTE and/or TEE is required to make the diagnosis and guide treatment

Spotlight on Valvular Heart Disease Guidelines

Aortic Valve Practice Guidelines: What Has Changed and What You Need to Know

Dobutamine Stress testing In Low Flow, Low EF, Low Gradient Aortic Stenosis Case Studies

Aortic stenosis aetiology: morphology of calcific AS,

Nothing to Disclose. Questions. Disclosure Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis: (When) Should One Intervene? Paul Wood at the Nathanson Lecture, 1958

Low gradient severe aortic stenosis with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction

Severe Asymptomatic Aortic Stenosis

Comprehensive Echo Assessment of Aortic Stenosis

Role of Stress Echo in Valvular Heart Disease. Satoshi Nakatani Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine Osaka, Japan

Load and Function - Valvular Heart Disease. Tom Marwick, Cardiovascular Imaging Cleveland Clinic

The best in heart valve disease Aortic valve stenosis

SONOGRAPHER & NURSE LED VALVE CLINICS

Outcome of Patients With Aortic Stenosis, Small Valve Area, and Low-Flow, Low-Gradient Despite Preserved Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction

Stress Testing in Valvular Disease

Management of significant asymptomatic aortic stenosis. Alec Vahanian Bichat Hospital University Paris VII Paris, France

Asymptomatic Valvular Disease:

Affecting the elderly Requiring new approaches. Echocardiographic Evaluation of Hemodynamic Severity. Increasing prevalence Mostly degenerative

Primary Mitral Regurgitation

Workshop Facing the challenge of TAVI 2016

AS with reduced LV ejection fraction: Contractile reserve should be systematically assessed: PRO

Aortic Stenosis: UPDATE Anjan Sinha, MD Krannert Institute of Cardiology

Usually we DON T need to go beyond the gradient

TAVR: Echo Measurements Pre, Post And Intra Procedure

Low Gradient AS Normal LVEF

LV geometric and functional changes in VHD: How to assess? Mi-Seung Shin M.D., Ph.D. Gachon University Gil Hospital

DOPPLER HEMODYNAMICS (1) QUANTIFICATION OF PRESSURE GRADIENTS and INTRACARDIAC PRESSURES

Exercise Testing/Echocardiography in Asymptomatic AS

Exercise Pulmonary Hypertension predicts the Occurrence of Symptoms in Asymptomatic Degenerative Mitral Regurgitation

Echo evaluation for TAVR. From the General Cardiologist to the Interventional Echocardiologist

Relevant Financial Relationship(s) Off Label Usage. None. None

TAVR-Update Andrzej Boguszewski MD, FACC, FSCAI Vice Chairman, Cardiology Mid-Michigan Health Associate Professor Michigan State University, Central

Assessment and Preparation of Patients with TAVI. Rob Tanzola Associate Professor, Queen s University

Aortic Stenosis.

Five-Year Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) in Inoperable Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis: The PARTNER Trial

Case Reviews: Hemodynamic Calculations in Valvular Regurgitation

Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch in High Risk Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis in a Randomized Trial of a Self-Expanding Prosthesis

2/15/2018 DISCLOSURES OBJECTIVES. Consultant for BioSense Webster, a J&J Co. Aortic stenosis background. Short history of TAVR

Prosthetic valve dysfunction: stenosis or regurgitation

Role of Transesophageal Echocardiography in the Diagnosis of Paradoxical Low Flow, Low Gradient Severe Aortic Stenosis

A patient with aortic stenosis and LV dysfunction EuroECHO & Other Imaging Modalities 2012 Athens, Greece

Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch or Prosthetic Valve Stenosis?

Aortic Stenosis Steven F. Bolling, M.D. Professor of Cardiac Surgery University of Michigan

Hemodynamic Assessment. Assessment of Systolic Function Doppler Hemodynamics

Mixed aortic valve disease

Michigan Society of Echocardiography 30 th Year Jubilee

Aortic valve Stenosis: Insights in the evaluation of LV function. Erwan DONAL Cardiologie CHU Rennes

How to Avoid Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch

Aortic Stenosis and TAVR TARUN NAGRANI, MD INTERVENTIONAL AND ENDOVASCULAR CARDIOLOGIST, SOMC

Vinod H. Thourani, MD

TAVR IN INTERMEDIATE-RISK PATIENTS

Echocardiographic Evaluation of Aortic Valve Prosthesis

Diastolic Function Assessment Practical Ways to Incorporate into Every Echo

Clinical Outcome in Patients with Aortic Stenosis

A new way to look at the aortic valve

Patient/prosthesis mismatch: how to evaluate and when to act?

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Current and Future Devices: How do They Work, Eligibility, Review of Data

Valve Disease in Patients With Heart Failure TAVI or Surgery? Miguel Sousa Uva Hospital Cruz Vermelha Lisbon, Portugal

HEMODYNAMIC ASSESSMENT

Valvular Intervention

New imaging modalities for assessment of TAVI procedure and results. R Dulgheru, MD Heart Valve Clinic CHU, Liege

A Health Care Professional s Guide Aortic Stenosis in Seniors

Choose the grading of diastolic function in 82 yo woman

Risk stratification of severe aortic stenosis according to new guidelines: long term outcomes

The Incidence and Predictors of Postoperative Atrial Fibrillation After Noncardiothoracic Surgery

Valvular Heart Disease

The prevalence of calcific aortic valve disease approaches. Compendium. Current Management of Calcific Aortic Stenosis

Severe Aortic Stenosis with Low Gradient and Preserved Ejection Fraction

Severe left ventricular dysfunction and valvular heart disease: should we operate?

TAVR Cases. Disclosures 2/17/2018. February 17, :15 3:30 PM 15 min

Hypertension in Aortic Valve Disease

Calcific aortic stenosis (AS) is the most frequent valvular

Echocardiographic evaluation of mitral stenosis

STRUCTURAL. aortic stenosis, transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Independent Effect of Low Flow on Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Aortic Valve Replacement for Severe Aortic Stenosis

Echocardiographic Evaluation of Aortic Valve Prosthesis

TAVI After PARTNER-2 : The Hamilton Approach

TAVR: Intermediate Risk Patients

How to assess ischaemic MR?

An Integrated Approach to Study LV Diastolic Function

Diastolic Function Assessment New Guideline Update Practical Approach


2019 Qualified Clinical Data Registry (QCDR) Performance Measures

Transcription:

Indicator Mild Moderate Severe Jet velocity (m/s) 2.0-2.9 3.0-3.9 4.0 Mean gradient (mmhg) < 20 20-39 40 Valve area (cm 2 ) 1.0 Valve area index (cm 2 /m 2 ) 0.6 1

Abnormal AV with Reduced Systolic Opening Severe AS V max 4 m/sec P mean 40 mmhg V max 3.0-3.9 m/sec P mean 20-39 mmhg Symptomatic (stage D1) Asymptomatic (stage C) Symptomatic Asymptomatic LVEF < 50% (stage C2) Other cardiac surgery Vmax 5 m/sec P mean 60mmHg Low surgical risk LVEF<50% Yes DSE with AVA 1 cm 2 and V max 4m/sec (stage D2) No AVA 1 cm 2 and LVEF 50% (stage D3*) Other cardiac surgery Abnormal ETT V max 0.3 m/s/y Low surgical risk AS likely cause of symptoms AVR (Class I) AVR (Class IIa) AVR (Class IIb) AVR (Class IIa) 2

Case. Asymptomatic Severe AS Case. Asymptomatic Severe AS AV Vmax = 4.6 m/sec AV Vmax = 5.5 m/sec 3

Case. Asymptomatic Severe AS LVOT diameter 2.1 cm LVOT TVI 21 cm Vmax = 5.5 m/sec AV TVI 154 cm 0.785 2 0.785 2.1 2 21 154. Comparison of Early Surgery versus Conventional Treatment in Asymptomatic Very Severe Aortic Stenosis Duk-Hyun Kang, Sung-Ji Park*, Ji Hye Rim, Dae-Hee Kim, Jong-Min Song, Kee-Joon Choi, Seung Woo Park*, Jae-Kwan Song, Jae-Won Lee, Pyo-Won Park* Division of Cardiology, Cardiac Surgery Asan Medical Center, Samsung Medical Center* Seoul, South Korea Kang DH, et al. Circulation 2010;121:1502 4

Survival Free of Cardiac Death OP versus CONV group Cardiac mortality free survival (%) 100 80 60 40 0 P<0.001 OP 6-year survival rate 100% CONV 6-year survival rate 76±5% 0 2 4 6 OP CONV years No at Risk OP 102 96 48 29 CONV 95 82 54 32 Abnormal AV with Reduced Systolic Opening Severe AS V max 4 m/sec P mean 40 mmhg V max 3.0-3.9 m/sec P mean 20-39 mmhg Symptomatic (stage D1) Asymptomatic (stage C) Symptomatic Asymptomatic LVEF < 50% (stage C2) Other cardiac surgery Vmax 5 m/sec P mean 60mmHg Low surgical risk LVEF<50% Yes DSE with AVA 1 cm 2 and V max 4m/sec (stage D2) No AVA 1 cm 2 and LVEF 50% (stage D3*) Other cardiac surgery Abnormal ETT V max 0.3 m/s/y Low surgical risk AS likely cause of symptoms AVR (Class I) AVR (Class IIa) AVR (Class IIb) AVR (Class IIa) 5

Indicator Mild Moderate Severe Jet velocity (m/s) < 3.0 3.0-3.9 > 4.0 Mean gradient (mmhg) < 20 20-39 > 40 Valve area (cm 2 ) 1.0 Valve area index (cm 2 /m 2 ) 0.6 6

Minners J, et al. Eur Heart J 2008;29:1043 48 AVA 1.0cm2 & Mean PG < 40mmHg LVEF < 50% 50% SV index (ml/m 2 ) 35 >35 Classical LF LG AS Paradoxical LF LG AS Normal-flow LG AS Clavel MA et al., Eur Heart J, 2016 7

67 year old female with exertional dyspnea Case: low gradient AS with depressed LVEF LVOT diameter 2.0 cm LVOT TVI 12.5cm AV Vmax 3.7m/s Mean PG 35mmHg 0.785 2 0.785 2.0 2 12.5 73.7. 8

Pibarot P and Dumesnil JG. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;60:1845 53 Baseline LVOT TVI 13.2cm Vmax 3.6m/sec PG 51/32mmHg AVA 0.52cm 2 Dobutamine 5 μg LVOT TVI 13.8cm Vmax 4.1m/sec PG 66/41mmHg Dobutamine 10 μg LVOT TVI 14.4cm Vmax 4.8m/sec PG 93/54mmHg AVA 0.50cm 2 9

Low-gradient severe AS with depressed LVEF - Low LVEF (<40%) causing low stroke volume - True severe AS versus pseudosevere AS Paradoxical Low-flow, Low-gradient severe AS with preserved LVEF - Severe concentric LVH and smaller LV cavity size - High valvuloarterial impedance and low stroke volume Pibarot P and Dumesnil JG. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;60:1845 53 10

Impaired Diastolic Filling Pronounced Concentric Remodeling Atrial Fibrillation Impaired Longitudinal Systolic function Reduced Forward Stroke Volume Reduced Transvalvular flow rate Mitral Regurgitation Mitral Stenosis Tricuspid Regurgitation Low-Flow, Low gradient AS with Preserved LVEF Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Circulation 2013:1729 100 80 NF group 100 80 PLF surgical NF surgical Survival (%) 60 40 P=0.006 PLF group Survival (%) 60 40 P<0.001 PLF medical NF medical 20 20 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Follow-up (year) 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Follow-up (year) Hachicha Z, et al. Circulation 2007;115:2856 64 11

1.0 Unadjusted 1.0 Adjusted 0.8 AVR 0.8 Survival (%) 0.6 0.4 Standard Survival (%) 0.6 0.4 AVR Standard 0.2 0.0 Log rank P<0.001 0.2 0.0 HR: 2.03, P=0.013 0 12 24 36 48 60 Follow up, (month) 0 12 24 36 48 60 Follow up, (month) Ozkan et al. Circulation 2013;128:622 631 PARTNER-I B (inoperable): Medical vs. TAVR 2-Year Death (%) 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 LF-Cohort B-TAVR LF-Cohort B-MM Log Rank P<0.001 76.2% 45.9% 0 0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660 720 No. at Risk Time in Days B-TAVR 85 74 65 58 55 50 47 46 46 B-MM 95 78 60 47 39 35 26 25 18 2-Year Death (%) 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 LF,NEF and-lg-cohort B-TAVR LF,NEF and LG-Cohort B-MM Log Rank P=0.047 76.9% 56.5% 0 0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660 720 No. at Risk Time in Days B-TAVR 23 21 19 17 15 13 11 10 10 B-MM 29 22 15 10 9 9 6 5 4 Herrman HC et al, Circulation, 2013 12

AVA < 1.0 cm 2 Low gradient (severe?) AS LVEF < 50% Low LVEF 50% Preserved LVEF Classical Low-Flow, Low-gradient AS D2 Stage < 35 ml/m 2 Low Flow Paradox, Low Flow, Low-gradient AS D3 Stage Flow SVi 35 ml/m 2 Normal Flow Normal Flow, Low-gradient AS? Stage Confirm AS severity: 2D echo, DSE, MDCT Assess surgical risk Confirm AS severity: 2D echo, MDCT Assess surgical risk Confirm AS severity: 2D echo, MDCT AVR-Class IIa TAVR > SAVR? AVR-Class IIa TAVR > SAVR? AVR? SAVR or TAVR Pibarot P et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016:2359 2363 AVA 1.0cm2 & Mean PG < 40mmHg LVEF < 50% 50% SV index (ml/m 2 ) 35 >35 Classical LF LG AS Paradoxical LF LG AS Normal-flow LG AS Clavel MA et al., Eur Heart J, 2016 13

Case: 70 year old male with low gradient AS and dyspnea Case: low gradient AS with preserved LV ejection fraction LVOT 2.08 cm LVOT TVI 25 cm AV Vmax 3.7 m/s meanpg 35 mmhg AV TVI 90 cm AVA LVOT 0.785 2.08 0.785 25 90 0.94 cm BSA = 1.77 m 2 AVAI = 0.53 cm 2 /m 2 Stroke Volume = 80.0 ml SVI = 45.2 ml/m 2 14

Paradoxical Low-flow, Low-gradient severe AS - Severe concentric LVH and smaller LV cavity size - High valvuloarterial impedance and low stroke volume Normal-flow, Low-gradient severe AS - Measurement error - Small body surface area - Inconsistency between cutoff values of AVA and gradient Aortic valve area (cm 2 ) Mean gradient (mmhg) 3.0 2.9 2.0 6.6 1.0 26 0.9 32 0.8 41 0.7 53 0.6 73 Carabello BA. N Engl J Med 2002;346:677 15

AVA < 1.0 cm 2 Low gradient (severe?) AS LVEF < 50% Low LVEF 50% Preserved LVEF Classical Low-Flow, Low-gradient AS D2 Stage < 35 ml/m 2 Low Flow Paradox, Low Flow, Low-gradient AS D3 Stage Flow SVi 35 ml/m 2 Normal Flow Normal Flow, Low-gradient AS? Stage Confirm AS severity: 2D echo, DSE, MDCT Assess surgical risk Confirm AS severity: 2D echo, MDCT Assess surgical risk Confirm AS severity: 2D echo, MDCT AVR-Class IIa TAVR > SAVR? AVR-Class IIa TAVR > SAVR? AVR? Pibarot P et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016:2359 2363 Watchful Observation Versus Early Aortic Valve Replacement for Patients with Normal flow, Low Gradient Severe Aortic Stenosis Duk-Hyun Kang, Jeong Yoon Jang, Sung-Ji Park, Dae Hee Kim, Jong-Min Song, Seung Woo Park, Jae-Kwan Song, Jae Won Lee, Seung-Jung Park Asan and Samsung Medical Center Seoul, Korea Kang DH, et al. Heart 2015;1375 81 16

Study Flow Normal flow LG AS (n = 284) Early AVR Group (n = 98, 35%) Early elective AVR within 6 months after initial echocardiography Watchful Observation Group (n = 186, 65%) Referred for late AVR Symptoms worsened Aortic jet velocity > 4 m/s Mean gradient > 40 mmhg Clinical and Echocardiographic follow-up until June 2014 Kang DH, et al. Heart 2015;1375 81 100 Overall mortality rate, % 80 60 40 20 p = 0.840 8 year overall mortality rate Early AVR Watchful Observation 17 ± 5 % 27 ± 5% No. at Risk Early AVR Watchful Observation 0 0 2 4 6 8 98 186 90 178 Time after baseline, years 64 123 38 74 22 39 17

100 CV mortality rate, % 80 60 40 20 p = 0.806 8 year CV mortality rate Early AVR Watchful Observation 11 ± 4 % 18 ± 4 % No. at Risk Early AVR Watchful Observation 0 0 2 4 6 8 98 186 90 178 Time after baseline, years 64 123 38 74 22 39 100 Overall mortality rate, % 80 60 40 20 p = 0.741 8 year overall mortality rate Early AVR Watchful Observation 20 ± 5% 22 ± 7 % No. at Risk Early AVR Watchful Observation 0 0 2 4 6 8 83 83 75 80 Time after baseline, years 54 54 34 30 21 16 18

75 year old female with exertional dyspnea AV Vmax 3.8 m/s AV TVI 89 cm LVOT 1.96 cm AVA... LVOT TVI 20.4 cm BSA = 1.57 m 2 AVAI = 0.43 cm 2 /m 2 SVI = 39.2 ml/m 2 Case. What is your diagnosis? 1) Moderate AS 2) High-gradient Severe AS 3) Normal-flow, Low-gradient Severe AS 4) Low-flow, Low-gradient Severe AS 19

75 year old female with high gradient, severe AS AV Vmax 3.8 m/s AV Vmax 4.2 m/s Case. What is your diagnosis? 1) Moderate AS 2) High-gradient Severe AS 3) Normal-flow, Low-gradient Severe AS 4) Low-flow, Low-gradient Severe AS 20

Flow gradient pattern, AVA, ejection fraction, symptoms and operative risk should be considered in a decision for AVR in severe AS Clinical trials are required to evaluate benefit of surgical AVR or TAVR for symptomatic patients with LG severe AS and asymptomatic patients with very severe AS 21