4.6 Article

Prediction of symptom-onset in aortic stenosis: a comparison of pressure drop/flow slope and haemodynamic measures at rest

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 81, Issue 2-3, Pages 131-137

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0167-5273(01)00544-7

Keywords

echocardiography; Doppler; aortic stenosis; pressure drop

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To compare the pressure drop/flow slope with peak and mean pressure drop, effective orifice area and aortic valve resistance for the prediction of symptom-onset we performed resting and dobutamine stress echocardiography in 49 asymptomatic patients with aortic stenosis (peak aortic velocity>2.5 m/s). The end-point was progression to symptoms requiring surgery and patients were followed for a mean 21.2 (5.2) months. A total of 23 (47%) patients progressed to symptoms requiring aortic valve replacement and 26 remained asymptomatic. There was no significant difference in age, gender, fractional shortening or the presence or absence of coronary artery disease between these groups. There were differences in peak aortic velocity (P<0.0001), peak and mean pressure drop (P<0.0001), effective orifice area (P=0.03), aortic valve resistance (P=0.001) and pressure drop/flow slope (P<0.0001). On Cox regression analysis, the pressure drop/flow slope (P<0.0001), peak aortic velocity (P=0.005) and peak pressure gradient (P=0.02) were independent predictors. Mean event-free survival at 2 years for peak velocity >4.0 m/s was 17% and for pressure drop/flow slope >0.10 mmHg/ms(-1) was 20%. Of 13 patients reporting symptoms during dobutamine stress, 10 (77%) developed spontaneous symptoms during follow-up compared with 13 of 36 (36%) with no symptoms (P=0.11). The pressure drop/flow slope is a better independent predictor of symptom onset titan resistance, mean pressure difference and effective orifice area, but is similar to peak velocity. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available