Determinants of symptoms and exercise capacity in aortic stenosis: a comparison of resting haemodynamics and valve compliance during dobutamine stress

European Heart Journal (2003) 24, 1254 1263 Determinants of symptoms and exercise capacity in aortic stenosis: a comparison of resting haemodynamics and valve compliance during dobutamine stress Paul Das a *, Helen Rimington a, Nigel Smeeton b, John Chambers a a Valve Study Group, Cardiothoracic Centre, Guy s and St. Thomas Hospitals, London, UK b Department of Public Health Sciences, King s College, London, UK Received 7 December 2002; revised 25 February 2003; accepted 26 March 2003 KEYWORDS Aortic stenosis; Valve compliance; Stress echocardiography Aims Valve compliance might determine the onset of symptoms better than resting measures of aortic stenosis. This study compared valve compliance measured by dobutamine stress echocardiography with resting haemodynamic variables against the end-point of symptoms at low workload during exercise testing. Methods and results Echocardiography was performed at rest and during each stage of a dobutamine stress test in 65 asymptomatic patients with moderate or severe aortic stenosis. Each patient also completed a modified Bruce treadmill exercise test. During dobutamine stress, peak transaortic velocity increased by 1.0 (0.4) m/s and effective orifice area by 0.25 (0.22) cm 2. Valve compliance was 0.23 (0.10) cm 2 / 100 ml.s 1, and was independent of baseline effective orifice area. In the 19 patients limited by symptoms on exercise testing, valve compliance was significantly lower (0.19 (0.09) cm 2 /100 ml.s 1 ) than in those who remained asymptomatic (0.25 (0.10) cm 2 /100 ml.s 1, p=0.03). Effective orifice area at peak stress was also lower (1.0 (0.3) vs 1.2 (0.4) cm 2, p=0.03), but there were no significant differences in resting measures of effective orifice area, transaortic velocity, or mean pressure drop. Conclusions Effective orifice area is flow-dependent in patients with moderate and severe aortic stenosis with preserved left ventricular function. Exertional symptoms are better predicted by compliance than resting effective orifice area, mean pressure drop or peak transaortic velocity. 2003 The European Society of Cardiology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Introduction For measures of aortic stenosis to be clinically useful, they should correlate with independent clinical variables, for example mortality, surgical * Correspondence to: Dr Paul Das, Specialist Registrar, Department of Cardiology, Wythenshawe Hospital, Southmoor Road, Manchester M23 9LT, UK. Tel.: +44-(0)161-291-2402; fax: +44-(0)161-291-2389 E-mail address: Pauldas@compuserve.com (P. Das). rate, symptoms, or exercise tolerance. 1 3 Symptoms occur during exercise and, furthermore, both geometric and effective orifice area may be affected by changes in flow. 4 8 It is therefore possible that measures assessed during stress studies will be more useful than measures made at rest. The flow-dependency of effective orifice area can be expressed as valve compliance, defined as the slope of the regression line when effective orifice area is plotted against flow. A valve with a high compliance has a greater effective orifice area 0195-668X/03/$ - see front matter 2003 The European Society of Cardiology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/s0195-668x(03)00235-5

Valve compliance and symptoms in aortic stenosis 1255 with increased flow than does a valve with a low compliance. Prospective data suggest that patients with higher valve compliance are less likely to require valve replacement over a follow-up period of 30 months. 9 However, valve replacement is not always an accurate clinical end point. Whilst surgery is not usually recommended in asymptomatic aortic stenosis, it may be performed for patients with non-specific symptoms and severe stenosis. 10 Exercise testing reveals symptoms in a significant proportion of patients with aortic stenosis who claim to be asymptomatic 9,11 and these symptoms can predict outcome. 12 Exercise testing may provide a more reliable end-point than selection for valve replacement. We therefore compared valve compliance, measured by dobutamine stress echocardiography, and resting haemodynamic variables against the end-point of symptoms at low workload during exercise testing. Methods Patients A total of 86 consecutive asymptomatic patients with aortic valve leaflet thickening and moderate or severe aortic stenosis defined as an effective orifice area of 1.2 cm 2 or less attended a cardiac tertiary referral centre between June 1998 and July 2000 for transthoracic echocardiography. All were asymptomatic and had normal left ventricular systolic function (defined as a fractional shortening of >28% and no regional wall motion abnormality), no more than grade 1/4 aortic regurgitation and no other significant valve disease. Of these, 16 patients declined and five were unable to exercise. This left a study group of 65 subjects, median age 69 years (range 27 to 81) of whom 48 were male and 17 female. Aortic stenosis was graded using the continuity equation calculated at rest as moderate (effective orifice area 0.8 to 1.2 cm 2 ) or severe (effective orifice area <0.8 cm 2 ). 16 No patient had commissural fusion or associated rheumatic disease of the mitral valve. None had more than mild aortic or mitral regurgitation. Coronary angiography was performed in 20 patients, of whom four had significant coronary disease defined as a stenosis of at least 50% in one or more arteries. The study received approval from the local research ethics committee and all subjects gave written informed consent. Echocardiography Subjects stopped beta-blocker medication 48 h before and fasted for at least 3 h before the procedure. An ATL HDI 3000 (Seattle, Washington, USA) was used with a 3-2 20 mm duplex probe and 1.9 MHz continuous wave stand-alone probe. M-mode recordings were made at a level immediately apical to the tips of the mitral valve leaflets and end-diastolic measurements were made using the American Society of Echocardiography convention. 13 Fractional shortening was calculated as the systolic decrease in left ventricular short axis divided by the end-diastolic diameter. The sub aortic diameter was measured from inner edge to inner edge at the level of the base of the aortic cusps in a parasternal long axis frame frozen in systole, and the average of three estimates taken. Where possible, the number of aortic valve cusps was counted in a parasternal short axis view and calcification of each leaflet scored from 0 (no thickening) to 3 (dense calcification). Pulsed Doppler recordings were made in the apical 5-chamber view with the sample volume moved axially from the level of the aortic annulus until a clear non-aliased signal was obtained, usually 0.5 to 1 cm below the valve. The signal was traced to obtain peak velocity, velocity time integral and mean pressure difference using the online software. Continuous wave recordings were made from the apex and right intercostal positions and the optimal signal was traced to obtain peak velocity, velocity time integral, systolic ejection time and mean pressure difference using the on-line software. The average of three pulsed or continuous wave signals was taken. Dobutamine was infused intravenously from 5 µg/kg/min with increments of 5 µg/kg/min in 5-min stages to a maximum of 40 µg/kg/min. The peak dobutamine dose was 10 µg/kg/min in two patients, 15 µg/kg/min in 21 patients, 20 µg/kg/ min in 28 patients, 30 µg/kg/min in 11 patients and 40 µg/kg/min in three patients. The dobutamine infusion was stopped before 40 µg/kg/min because of a sustained fall in heart rate (n=35) aliasing of the outflow tract Doppler signal (n=10), symptoms alone (n=7), a fall in peak transaortic pressure difference (n=5), sustained hypotension (n=3) and cardiac dysrhythmias (n=2) including asymptomatic sustained atrial fibrillation requiring pharmacological cardioversion in one patient. There were no other complications. A 12-lead electrocardiogram was monitored continuously throughout the procedure and blood pressure was recorded at the end of each stage and

1256 P. Das et al. if a subject reported any symptom. Pulsed and continuous wave recordings were repeated after 3 min of each stage. Measurement of left ventricular outflow tract diameter was not repeated at each stage, but this has been shown not to change significantly during dobutamine stress. 6 Analysis Pulsed and continuous wave Doppler traces were analysed off-line. Effective orifice area (EOA in cm 2 ) was calculated by the classical continuity equation at rest and for each stage: EOA (CSA LVOT VTI LVOT )/VTI Ao VTI LVOT is left ventricular outflow tract velocity time integral (in cm), VTI Ao is aortic velocity time integral (in cm) and CSA LVOT is the cross sectional area of the left ventricular outflow tract (in cm 2 ), calculated assuming circular geometry: 2 CSA LVOT (π D LVOT )/4 Stroke volume (SV in ml) and transaortic flow (in ml/s) were calculated as follows where SET is systolic ejection time (in ms): SV CSA LVOT VTI LVOT Flow (SV/SET) 1000 Cardiac output (CO in l/min) was calculated as the product of stroke volume and heart rate. Mean pressure drop was calculated in mmhg by the Bernoulli equation as the difference between aortic and outflow tract mean pressure drop. A mean valve calcification score was calculated by dividing the total calcification score by the number of cusps. Valve compliance Effective orifice areas were plotted against flow at each stage of dobutamine stress for each case and a regression line was fitted to the plot where possible. Valve compliance in cm 2 /100 ml.s 1 was calculated directly from the slopes of the regression lines and effective orifice area at zero flow was calculated from the intercept of the regression line. Exercise testing Exercise testing was performed using a Quinton Q55xt treadmill and Q5000 monitor (Washington, USA) according to American College of Cardiology/ American Heart Association practice guidelines. 14 All subjects undertook a treadmill exercise test using a Bruce protocol modified by two warm-up stages, 15 supervised by a technician who was unaware of the echocardiographic data and in the presence of a physician. Maximum workload was predicted from age and sex. Subjects were questioned for symptoms every 2 min and heart rate, blood pressure and a 12-lead electrocardiogram were recorded at baseline, peak and the end of each stage. The test was stopped prematurely upon significant limiting breathlessness/chest discomfort or dizziness. Only clear symptoms preventing continuation of exercise at less than 80% of predicted maximum workload were considered significant. 16 Other predetermined criteria for cessation were ST segment depression of >5 mm measured 80 ms after the J point, more than three consecutive ventricular premature beats, and hypotension defined as a fall in systolic blood pressure of more than 20 mmhg from baseline, 9 although in practice no test was terminated for any of these reasons. Otherwise the test continued until the patient was fatigued. Total exercise time in seconds and maximum ST depression in mm in a single lead at 80 ms after the J point during the test were recorded. ST depression of 1 mm or greater was considered significant. Maximal exercise capacity was estimated by calculating MET level from peak treadmill speed and gradient using on-line software. Statistical analysis Results were expressed as mean (standard deviation) for normally distributed data or median [lower quartile, upper quartile] for skewed data. Echocardiographic variables at rest and peak dobutamine dose were compared using the paired t test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test for skewed data. The unpaired t test or the nonparametric Mann Whitney U-test for skewed data were used to compare patients with and without limiting symptoms and patients with moderate or severe aortic stenosis. Categorical variables were compared using the chi-squared test or Fisher s exact test. Associations of continuous variables were assessed by Pearson correlation. Interobserver and intraobserver measurement variability of off-line Doppler analysis was assessed by Pearson correlation and mean differences between two independent observers and repeated measurements by a single observer. Statistical analysis was performed using commercial software (GB-STAT V8.0: Dynamic Micro-

Valve compliance and symptoms in aortic stenosis 1257 Table 1 Clinical, haemodynamic and echocardiographic variables at rest and peak dobutamine stress (n=65) Variable Rest Peak stress P-value (paired t test) a Clinical Heart rate 77 (16) 113 (21) <0.0001 Systolic blood pressure (mmhg) 145 (28) 129 (25) 0.0001 Diastolic blood pressure (mmhg) 84 (14) 63 (15) <0.0001 Haemodynamic Stroke volume (ml) 68.6 (14.6) 73.9 (18.2) 0.001 Ejection time (msec) 308 (41) 220 (35) <0.0001 Transaortic flow (ml/s) 237 (76) 355 (106) <0.0001 Cardiac output (l/min) 5.4 (1.8) 8.4 (2.9) <0.0001 Echocardiographic Peak aortic velocity (m/s) 3.7 (0.8)/2.5 6.1 4.7 (0.8)/3.3 6.5 <0.0001 Mean pressure drop (mmhg) 33.2 (16.9)/12.7 100.6 46.7 (21.5)/17.6 125.8 <0.0001 Effective orifice area (cm 2 ) 0.84 (0.21)/0.46 1.20 1.10 (0.35)/0.51 2.01 <0.0001 a Mean (standard deviation)/range, paired t test. Table 2 systems Inc, Maryland, USA and Stata Statistical Software Release 7.0: Stata Corp, Texas, USA). Results Breakdown at rest and peak dobutamine stress by resting grade of stenosis Variable Moderate n=36 Severe n=29 P-value (t test) a Rest Flow (ml/s) 248 (43) 195 (37) <0.0001 Cardiac output (l/min) 5.7 (1.3) 4.6 (1.4) 0.003 Effective orifice area (cm 2 ) 1.01 (0.12) 0.65 (0.11) <0.0001 Peak stress Flow (ml/s) 388 (87) 282 (58) <0.0001 Cardiac output (l/min) 9.0 (2.2) 7.3 (1.9) 0.002 Effective orifice area (cm 2 ) 1.31 (0.30) 0.83 (0.18) <0.0001 Derived Change in area (cm 2 ) 0.31 (0.26) 0.18 (0.14) 0.013 % change in area 31 (28) 28 (21) 0.6 Valve compliance (cm 2 /100 ml.s 1 ) n=63 0.24 (0.11) 0.22 (0.09) 0.41 a Mean (standard deviation), t test. Baseline and dobutamine stress echocardiography At rest, mean effective orifice area was 0.84 (0.21) cm 2 (Table 1) and the aortic stenosis was moderate in 36 and severe in 29 patients. Median transaortic flow and mean cardiac output were significantly higher in patients with moderate than with severe aortic stenosis (Table 2). Calcification scores could be calculated in 36 cases and were 2.00 (range 0.67 to 3.00). At peak dobutamine dose, transaortic flow was higher than at rest in all patients. Heart rate and stroke volume were significantly higher, whilst ejection time was shorter and the resulting cardiac output was higher. Systolic and diastolic blood pressures were lower (Table 1). Peak transaortic velocity and mean pressure drop increased in all patients. Effective orifice area increased at peak stress in 59 cases, decreased in five and was unchanged in one. The absolute change in orifice area in the whole population was 0.25 (0.22) cm 2 and was greater in moderate than severe stenosis although there was substantial overlap between the two groups (Table 2). Valve compliance Effective orifice area was plotted against transaortic flow for each individual patient. A linear, but not curvilinear, regression line fitted in 63 cases (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2). The points were too dispersed to plot a regression line for the remaining two

1258 P. Das et al. Fig. 1 Individual regression lines of effective orifice area against flow in moderate stenosis. Fig. 2 Individual regression lines of effective orifice area against flow in severe stenosis. patients. Mean valve compliance was 0.23 (0.10) cm 2 /100 ml.s 1 with no significant difference between patients with moderate or severe stenosis (Table 2). However, the regression line at zero flow was offset from zero by 0.40 cm 2 in moderate stenosis and 0.20 cm 2 in severe stenosis (p<0.0001). Valve compliance was not related to resting effective orifice area, but there were weak inverse relations with resting peak transaortic velocity (r= 0.33, p=0.007) and mean aortic pressure drop (r=0.32, p=0.01). Valve compliance was not related to mean valve calcification score. The mean valve compliance of the seven patients who experienced symptoms during dobutamine stress was not significantly different from the remainder of the group (0.28 (0.12) vs 0.23 (0.10) cm 2 /100 ml.s 1, p=0.25). For valve compliance, the interobserver correlation coefficient was r=0.97, and the mean difference was 0.036 cm 2 /100 ml.s 1. The intraobserver correlation coefficient was r=0.83, and the mean difference was 0.028 cm 2 /100 ml.s 1.

Valve compliance and symptoms in aortic stenosis 1259 Fig. 3 Individual regression lines of effective orifice area against flow for patients with exercise-limiting symptoms. Fig. 4 Individual regression lines of effective orifice area against flow for patients without exercise-limiting symptoms. Exercise testing All 65 patients performed the exercise test satisfactorily. Despite claiming to be asymptomatic, 19 patients (29%) stopped because of limiting symptoms: breathlessness or chest discomfort in 16 and dizziness in three. Four patients had minor symptoms at high workload and the remaining 42 experienced no symptoms and stopped because of fatigue. No exercise test was terminated for another reason and there were no complications. There were no significant differences in resting measures of aortic stenosis between patients with limiting symptoms and those without. Of those with symptoms, 11 (58%) had severe stenosis and 8 (42%) had moderate stenosis (p=0.17). However, valve compliance was significantly lower in patients with limiting symptoms, at 0.19 (0.09) cm 2 /100 ml.s 1, than in those without, at 0.25 (0.10) cm 2 /100 ml.s 1 (p=0.03, Fig. 3 and Fig. 4). Among the 29 patients with severe stenosis, valve compliance was 0.20 (0.09) cm 2 /100 ml.s 1 in those with symptoms and 0.24 (0.08) cm 2 / 100 ml.s 1 in those without, but this difference was

1260 P. Das et al. Table 3 Resting and peak variables by limiting symptoms on exercise testing Variable Limiting symptoms (n=19) No symptoms (n=46) P-value Clinical Age (years) a 69 [57, 75] 70 [57, 74] 0.77 Total exercise time (secs) 437 (140) 741 (169) <0.0001 MET level 4.6 (1.2) 8.3 (2.7) <0.0001 Rest Peak aortic velocity (m/s) 3.8 (0.5) 3.7 (0.8) 0.8 Mean pressure drop (mmhg) 32.9 (10.4) 32.5 (19.5) 0.92 Effective orifice area (cm 2 ) 0.79 (0.20) 0.87 (0.21) 0.14 Peak Peak aortic velocity (m/s) 4.9 (0.6) 4.7 (0.9) 0.45 Mean pressure drop (mmhg) 54.0 (17.0) 50.5 (23.2) 0.51 Effective orifice area (cm 2 ) 0.96 (0.30) 1.15 (0.36) 0.034 Derived Change in area (cm 2 ) +0.17 (0.16) +0.28 (0.24) 0.047 Valve compliance (cm 2 /100 ml.s -1 ) n=63 0.19 (0.09) 0.25 (0.10) 0.03 a Median [lower quartile, upper quartile], Mann Whitney U-test. Mean (standard deviation), t test. not statistically significant. For the 36 patients with moderate stenosis, valve compliance was 0.18 (0.08) and 0.26 (0.12) cm 2 /100 ml.s 1 in respectively those with and without symptoms (p=0.047). Peak effective orifice area and the absolute increase in area from rest to peak were also slightly lower in patients with symptoms (Table 3). Patients with coronary artery disease were not more likely to have limiting symptoms. Total exercise time was inversely related to age and directly related to effective orifice area but did not correlate significantly to other measures of stenosis including valve compliance. The overall MET level achieved was also related to resting and peak measures of area but not to valve compliance. In 18 cases, systolic blood pressure either did not increase or fell during exercise. There were no differences in resting measures, valve compliance or peak effective orifice area between these patients and those showing a positive blood pressure response. Discussion This is the first study to compare valve compliance with symptoms and exercise capacity in patients with isolated aortic stenosis and normal left ventricular systolic function. Valve compliance in aortic stenosis Effective orifice area increased with transaortic flow in 59 of 65 patients with moderate or severe aortic stenosis. The mean increase was slightly greater in moderate (0.31 cm 2 ) than severe stenosis (0.18 cm 2 ) although the relative increases were similar. This is consistent with previous studies that demonstrated flow dependency of effective orifice area in patients with preserved left ventricular function 7,8,17 as well as those with impaired left ventricular function provided that contractile reserve was maintained. 18,19 Like Bermejo et al., 20 we found that valve compliance was not related to resting effective orifice area. This means that two valves could have the same effective area at rest, but potentially significantly different effective areas with increased flow induced by dobutamine or exercise. Mechanism of valve compliance Greater valve compliance might be explained by a progressive increase in maximal geometric orifice area with flow or by a more rapid opening despite a constant maximal orifice area. 20 There is evidence for both mechanisms and it is likely that both can occur together. Increases in geometric orifice area were demonstrated by video recording of stenotic native aortic valves mounted in a pulse simulator. 4,21 In contrast, a small study of 11 patients using transoesophageal echocardiography failed to show an increase in geometric orifice area with dobutamine stress. 22 This may reflect technical limitations of twodimensional planimetry of the calcific stenotic valve, which forms a relatively complex threedimensional structure.

Valve compliance and symptoms in aortic stenosis 1261 Using frame-by-frame planimetry, Arsenault measured aortic valve area at different points during the ejection cycle, and found that more severely stenotic valves opened and closed more slowly. 23 Effective orifice area by the continuity equation correlated more closely with maximum than mean area measured by planimetry. The present study examined the relation between continuity area and mean systolic flow rate. A linear relation between area and flow was identified over a physiological range of flow in most patients regardless of the severity of stenosis. However, the linear area/flow regression lines were offset from zero by 0.4 cm 2 in moderate and 0.2 cm 2 in severe stenosis, suggesting that the relation is in fact non-linear at very low flow. This finding would be consistent with more rapid opening of the valve in less severe stenosis. The relationship between geometric valve area and effective orifice area may also be affected by non-valvar factors. Using a canine in vivo model of aortic stenosis, Bermejo also showed that pressure reversal occurred late in the ejection period, which could alter effective functional orifice area despite the maintenance of geometric area. 20 It is possible that the effect of flow is mediated by valve morphology. Shively showed that valves that were bicuspid or had significant commissural fusion on transoesophageal echocardiography were less compliant than calcific degenerative valves. 6 The pattern of valvar calcification could influence compliance, with diffuse calcification of the cusp bodies associated with poorer compliance. In the present study, the degree of calcification did not relate to compliance, although the assessment of calcification by transthoracic echocardiography must be regarded as no more than semiquantitative. Clinical implications: the relationship of valve compliance to symptoms and exercise capacity The effect of flow on effective orifice area is well documented in patients with impaired left ventricular function. However, even in those with a preserved left ventricle, the presence of high transaortic flow, for example as a result of anaemia, pain or fever may modify effective orifice area. The mean increase in effective orifice area during dobutamine stress was 0.25 cm 2 in this study, sufficient to change the classification in several patients from severe to moderate or from moderate to mild if peak rather than resting calculations were used. It may, therefore, be inaccurate to grade aortic stenosis by resting haemodynamic measures alone. It has been proposed that patients with limited valve compliance might develop exertional symptoms earlier in the progression of the condition. 1,2 The results of this study confirm an association between aortic valve compliance and exerciselimiting symptoms. In models of aortic stenosis, left ventricular workload and energy loss are inversely related to valve area and directly related to flow. 21,24 A failure of effective orifice area to increase during exercise would be expected to lead to a greater rise in left ventricular workload and poorer exercise tolerance than in a more compliant valve. There can be discrepancies in the frequency of symptoms between moderate and severe aortic stenosis when defined in the conventional way by resting measures. 25,26 In this study, valve compliance was lower in patients with symptoms on exercise testing. It was also lower in some patients with moderate rather than severe stenosis as calculated by the continuity equation at rest. This may partly explain these apparent discrepancies in symptoms between moderate and severe stenosis. However, valve compliance may be of less significance in the patients with the most severe stenosis at rest. Effective orifice area at peak stress also related more closely to exertional symptoms than did resting orifice area, although peak stress did not always correspond to peak transaortic flow. Study limitations Doppler measurements of pressure drop and effective orifice area in moderate and severe aortic stenosis are recognized as accurate and reproducible. However, technical difficulties in performing and analysing these measurements at higher flow rates may reduce this accuracy. This is likely to be the reason for an apparent drop in effective orifice area in spite of increased flow in eight patients. Furthermore, it was not possible to establish the relationship of effective orifice area to flow in four patients because of lack of data points and excessive scatter. This might be improved in subsequent studies by increasing the frequency of Doppler readings taken. The assessment of symptoms during exercise testing can be subjective. To minimize this, only clearly limiting symptoms at less than 80% maximum predicted workload were accepted. 15 Minor, non-limiting symptoms at high workload were not considered significant.

1262 P. Das et al. Safety of dobutamine stress in aortic stenosis Dobutamine stress has been used safely at doses of up to 40 µg/kg/min to study flow-dependent haemodynamics in patients with moderate and severe aortic stenosis. 7,8,27 However, dobutamine cannot exactly replicate the physiological effects of physical activity. In addition to chronotropic and inotropic effects, it can cause a reduction in peripheral vascular resistance theoretically leading to a fall in transaortic pressure drop at constant flow. 28 Seven patients experienced significant symptoms at peak dobutamine stress but there were no significant complications. These symptoms were not predicted by resting measures of stenosis or related to valve compliance, but symptomatic patients tended to have greater falls in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, suggesting that the symptoms were caused in part by peripheral effects of dobutamine. Satisfactory stress echocardiography was achieved at a dose of 20 µg/kg/min dobutamine or less in 51 cases. Above this level, aliasing of the outflow tract pulsed Doppler signal and a significant decrease in heart rate became more frequent. We would therefore recommend 20 µg/kg/min as the maximum dose for a stress study in asymptomatic aortic stenosis, with continuous heart rate monitoring and blood pressure recording at a frequency of at least once during each stage. However, dobutamine infusion should be stopped prior to this if significant symptoms or sustained falls in heart rate or systolic blood pressure occur. Conclusions This study confirms that effective orifice area is flow-dependent in patients with moderate and severe aortic stenosis and preserved left ventricular systolic function. Valve compliance is not predicted accurately by resting measures. Patients with and without symptoms on exercise testing were better distinguished by valve compliance than by resting effective orifice area, transaortic velocity or mean pressure drop. However, the significance of valve compliance requires prospective study against clinical outcome measures such as new symptoms during follow-up before stress echocardiography can be recommended in patients with aortic stenosis and normal left ventricular function. References 1. Otto CM. Valvular aortic stenosis: which measure of severity is best? Am Heart J 1998;136:940 2. 2. Otto CM. The difficulties in assessing patients with moderate aortic stenosis. Heart 1999;82:5 6. 3. Lester SJ, Heilbron B, Gin K et al. The natural history and rate of progression of aortic stenosis. Chest 1998; 113:1109 14. 4. Chambers JB, Sprigings DC, Cochrane T et al. Continuity equation and Gorlin formula compared with directly observed orifice area in native and prosthetic aortic valves. Br Heart J 1992;67:193 9. 5. Voelker W, Reul H, Nienhaus G et al. Comparison of valvular resistance, stroke work loss, and Gorlin valve area for the quantification of aortic stenosis. Circulation 1995; 91:1196 204. 6. Shively BK, Charlton GA, Crawford MH et al. Flow dependence of valve area in aortic stenosis: relation to valve morphology. JACC 1998;31:654 60. 7. Bermejo J, Garcia-Fernandez MA, Torrecilla EG et al. Effects of dobutamine on Doppler echocardiographic indexes of aortic stenosis. JACC 1996;28:1206 13. 8. Lin SS, Roger VL, Pascoe R et al. Dobutamine stress Doppler hemodynamics in patients with aortic stenosis: feasibility, safety and surgical considerations. Am Heart J 1998; 136:1010 6. 9. Otto CM, Burwash IG, Legget ME et al. Prospective study of asymptomatic valvular aortic stenosis. Clinical, echocardiographic, and exercise predictors of outcome. Circulation 1997;95:2262 70. 10. Rosenhek R, Binder T, Porenta G et al. Predictors of outcome in severe, asymptomatic aortic stenosis. NEnglJMed 2000;343:611 7. 11. Otto CM, Pearlman AS, Kraft CD et al. Physiologic changes with maximal exercise in asymptomatic valvular aortic stenosis assessed by Doppler echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 1992;20:1160 7. 12. Amoto MCM, Moffa PJ, Werner KE et al. Treatment decision in asymptomatic aortic stenosis: the role of exercise testing. Heart 2001;86:381 6. 13. Sahn DJ, De Maria A, Kisslo J. The Committee on M-mode Standardization of the American Society of Echocardiography: recommendations regarding quantitation in M-mode echocardiography: results of a survey of echocardiographic measurements. Circulation 1978;58:1072 81. 14. Gibbons RJ. ACC/AHA Guidelines for exercise testing. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines (Committee on Exercise Testing). JACC 1997;30:260 315. 15. Bruce RA. Exercise testing methods and interpretation. Adv Cardiol 1978;24:6 15. 16. Iung B, Gohlke-Bärwolf C, Tornos P et al.on behalf of the ESC Working Group on Valvular Heart Disease Recommendations on the management of the asymptomatic patient with valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J 2002;23:1253 66 doi:10.1053/euhj.2002.3320. 17. defilippi CR, DuWayne LW, Brickner ME et al. Usefulness of dobutamine echocardiography in distinguishing severe from nonsevere valvular aortic stenosis in patients with depressed left ventricular function and low transvalvular gradients. Am J Cardiol 1995;75:192 4. 18. Monin J, Monchi M, Gest V et al. Aortic stenosis with severe left ventricular dysfunction and low transvalvular pressure gradients. Risk stratification by low-dose dobutamine echocardiography. JACC 2001;37:2101 7.

Valve compliance and symptoms in aortic stenosis 1263 19. Bermejo J, Antoranz JC, Garcia-Fernandez MA et al. Flow dynamics of stenotic aortic valves assessed by signal processing of Doppler spectograms. Am J Cardiol 2000; 85:611 7. 20. Bermejo J, Antoranz JC, Burwash IG et al. In-vivo analysis of the instantaneous transvalvular pressure difference-flow relationship in aortic stenosis: implications of the unsteady fluid-dynamics for the clinical assessment of disease severity. J Heart Valve Dis 2002;11:557 66. 21. Sprigings DC, Chambers JB, Cochrane T et al. Ventricular stroke work loss: validation of a method of quantifying the severity of aortic stenosis and derivation of an orifice formula. JACC 1990;16:1608 14. 22. Tardif J, Rodrigues AG, Hardy JF et al. Simultaneous determination of aortic valve area by the Gorlin formula and by transoesophageal echocardiography under different transvalvular flow conditions. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997; 29:1296 302. 23. Arsenault M, Masani N, Magni G et al. Variation of anatomic valve area during ejection in patients with valvular aortic stenosis evaluated by two-dimensional echocardiographic planimetry: comparison with traditional Doppler data. JAm Coll Cardiol 1998;32:1931 7. 24. Heinrich RS, Marcus RH, Ensley AE et al. Valve orifice area alone is an insufficient index of aortic stenosis severity: effects of the proximal and distal geometry on transaortic energy loss. J Heart Valve Dis 1999;8:509 15. 25. Otto CM, Pearlman AS, Gardner CL. Haemodynamic progression of aortic stenosis in adults assessed by Doppler echocardiography. JACC 1989;13:545 50. 26. Otto CM, Nishimura RA, Davis KB et al. Doppler echocardiographic findings in adults with severe symptomatic valvular aortic stenosis. Balloon Valvuloplasty Registry Echocardiographers. Am J Cardiol 1991;68:1477 84. 27. Takeda S, Rimington H, Chambers JB. The relation between transaortic pressure difference and flow during dobutamine stress echocardiography in patients with aortic stenosis. Heart 1999;82:11 4. 28. Silove ED, Vogel JHK, Grover RF. The pressure gradient in ventricular outflow obstruction: influence of peripheral resistance. Cardiovasc Res 1968;3:234 42.