Haemodynamic Patterns of Severe Aortic Stenosis

The authors present up-to-date review of clinical pathophysiology of aortic stenosis (AS) based on differentiation of its haemodynamic patterns, and some actual issues of instrumental diagnostics and classification of AS. The variety of clinical presentations of AS is based on diverse combination of pathological changes of haemodynamics. In Russian cardiology, there is no clear pathophysiological classification of AS despite of its relevance under the progress of surgical and transcatheter treatment of AS. The authors suggest the pilot haemodynamic classification of AS which includes 6 types (0-5) based on different combination of the following variables: left ventricle ejection fraction, stroke volume, mean aortic systolic pressure gradient. Severe AS with low transaortic pressure gradient in patients with depressed systolic function of the left ventricle (so called «low flow-low» gradient phenomenon) is referred to as the most frequent, classical haemodynamic pattern of low-gradient AS. The prevalence of this variant is about 10% among European population of patients with severe AS. The inconsistence between aortic valve area and mean pressure gradient is as common as in 35-40% of patients with AS, however, in 30-50% of these cases, AS is not severe. Severe AS is a surgical disease that should be treated in a surgical way in all patients but those in whom predicted risk overbalances potential benefits of the procedure. The use of integrated clinical and instrumental approach for identification of a true sever AS is the matter of great concern, as both overestimation and underestimation can misguide the clinical decision-making process. Verification of severe AS in patients with classical and paradoxical low flow-low gradient AS with specific indications for surgical treatment regarded is further emphasized in the paper. Since transcatheter aortic valve implantation has become a commonly recognized alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement, its role in the treatment of severe AS with different haemodynamic patterns is also discussed. The authors stress on the necessity of using tailored approach for treatment of AS regarding different clinical and pathophysiological scenarios: high gradient AS with preserved ejection fraction, classical and paradoxical low flow-low gradient AS.

1. Baumgartner H., Hung J., Bermejo J., et al. Echocardiographic assessment of valve stenosis: EAE/ASE recommendations for clinical practice. Eur J Echocardiogr. 2009;10:1-25. DOI:10.1093/ejechocard/jen303.

2. Nishimura R.A., Otto C.M., Bonow R.O., et al. 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: Executive summary. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American heart association task force on practice guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:2438-88. DOI:10.1016/j.jacc.2014.02.537.

3. Pibarot P., Dumesnil J.G. Low-flow low-gradient aortic stenosis with normal and depressed left ventricular ejection fraction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:1845-53. DOI:10.1016/j.jacc.2012.06051.

4. Clavel M.A., Burwash I.G., Pibarot P. Cardiac imaging for assessing low-gradient severe aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol Imaging. 2017;10:185-202. DOI:10.1016/j.jcmg.2017.01.002.

5. Sathyamurthy I., Jayanthi K. Low flow low gradient aortic stenosis: clinical pathways. Indian Heart Journal. 2014;66:672-7. DOI:10.1016/j.ihj.2014.10.423.

6. Dewey T.M., Brown D.L., Herbert M.A., et al. Effect of concomitant coronary artery disease on procedural and late outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010;89(3):758- 67. DOI:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2009.12.033.

7. Аkchurin R.S., Komlev А.E. Surgical treatment of aortic heart disease. In: Chazov E.I., ed. Cardiology Guide. Moscow: Praktika; 2014. pp. 290-2 (In Russ.)

8. Garbi M., MacCarthy P., Shah A.M., Chambers J.B. Classical and paradoxical low-flow low-gradient aortic stenosis: a heart failure perspective. Structural Heart. 2018;2:3-9. DOI:10.1080/24748706.2017.1384876.

9. Chambers J. Low “gradient”, low flow aortic stenosis. Heart. 2006;92:554-8. DOI:10.1136/hrt.2005.079038.

10. Iung B., Baron G., Butchart E.G., et al. A prospective survey of patients with valvular heart disease in Europe: The Euro Heart Survey on Valvular heart Disease. Eur Heart J. 2003;24:1231-43. DOI:10.1016/s0195-668x(03)00201-x.

11. Monin J.L., Quere J.P., Monchi M., et al. Low-gradient aortic stenosis: operative risk stratification and predictors for long-term outcome: a multicenter study using dobutamine stress hemodynamics. Circulation. 2003;108:319-24. DOI:10.1161/01.CIR.0000079171.43055.46.

12. Clavel M.A., Burwash I.G., Mundigler G., et al. Validation of conventional and simplified methods to calculate projected valve area at normal flow rate in patients with low flow, low gradient aortic stenosis: the multicenter TOP (True or Pseudo Severe Aortic Stenosis) study. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2010;23:380-6. DOI:10.1016/j.echo.2010.02.002.

13. Cueff C., Serfaty J.M., Cimadevilla C., et al. Measurement of aortic valve calcification using multislice computed tomography: correlation with haemodynamic severity of aortic stenosis and clinical implication for patients with low ejection fraction. Heart. 2011;97:721-6. DOI:10.1136/hrt.2010.198853.

14. Baumgartner H., Falk V., Bax J.J., et al. 2017 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J 2017;38:2739-91. DOI:10.1093/eurheartj/ehx391.

15. Genereux P., Pibarot P., Redfors B., et al. Staging classification of aortic stenosis based on the extent of cardiac damage. Eur Heart J 2017;38:3351-8. DOI:10.1093/eurheartj/ehx381.

16. Clavel M.A., Magne J., Pibarot P. Low-gradient aortic stenosis. Eur Heart J. 2016;37:2645-57. DOI:10.1093/eurheartj/ehw096.

17. Tribouilloy C., Levy F., Rusinaru D., et al. Outcome after aortic valve replacement for low-flow/lowgradient aortic stenosis without contractile reserve on dobutamine stress echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53:1865-73. DOI:10.1016/j.jacc.2009.02.026.

18. Quere J.P., Monin J.L., Levy F., et al. Influence of pre-operative left ventricular contractile reserve on postoperative ejection fraction in low gradient aortic stenosis. Circulation. 2006;113:1738-44. DOI:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.568824.

19. Clavel M.A., Webb J.G., Rode´s-Cabau J., et al. Comparison between transcatheter and surgical prosthetic valve implantation in patients with severe aortic stenosis and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. Circulation. 2010;122:1928-36. DOI:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.929893.

20. Lauten A., Zahn R., Horack M., et al. German Transcatheter Aortic Valve Interventions Registry Investigators. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv. 2012;5:552-9. DOI:10.1016/j.jcin.2012.04.001.

21. Jander N. Low-gradient 'severe' aortic stenosis with preserved ejection fraction: New entity, or discrepant definitions? Eur Heart J Suppl. 2008;10:e11-15. DOI:10.1093/eurheartj/sun016.

22. Tribouilloy C., Rusinaru D., Marechaux S., et al. Low-gradient, low-flow severe aortic stenosis with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction: characteristics, outcome, and implications for surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65:55-66. DOI:10.1016/j.jacc.2014.09.080.

23. Ozkan A., Hachamovitch R., Kapadia S.R., et al. Impact of aortic valve replacement on outcome of symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis with low gradient and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. Circulation. 2013;128:622-31. DOI:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.001094.

24. Clavel M.A., Dumesnil J.G., Capoulade R., et al. Outcome of patients with aortic stenosis, small valve area and low-flow, low-gradient despite preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:1259-67. DOI:10.1016/j.jacc.2011.

25. Hachicha Z., Dumesnil J.G., Bogaty P., Pibarot P. Paradoxical low flow, low gradient severe aortic stenosis despite preserved ejection fraction is associated with higher afterload and reduced survival. Circulation. 2007;115:2856-64. DOI:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.668681.

26. Clavel M.A., Messika-Zeitoun D., Pibarot P., et al. The complex nature of discordant severe calcified aortic valve disease grading: new insights from combined doppler-echocardiographic and computed tomographic study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62:2329-38. DOI:10.1016/j.jacc.2013.08.1621.

27. Maes F., Boulif J., Pierard S., et al. Natural history of paradoxical low gradient ‘severe’ aortic stenosis. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;7:714-22. DOI:10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.113.001695.

28. Dayan V., Vignolo G., Magne J., et al. Outcome and impact of aortic valve replacement in patients with preserved LV ejection fraction and low gradient aortic stenosis: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;66:2594-603. DOI:10.1016/j.jacc.2015.09.076.

29. Tarantini G., Covolo E., Razzolini R., et al. Valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis with low transvalvular gradient and left ventricular ejection fraction exceeding 0.50. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011;91:1808-15. DOI:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2011.02.057.

30. Minners J., Allgeier M., Gohlke-Baerwolf C., et al. Inconsistent grading of aortic valve stenosis by current guidelines: haemodynamic studies in patients with apparently normal left ventricular function. Heart. 2010;96:1463-68. DOI:10.1136/hrt.2009.181982.

31. Eleid M.F., Nishimura R.A., Sorajja P., Borlaug B.A. Systemic hypertension in low gradient severe aortic stenosis with preserved ejection fraction. Circulation. 2013;128:1349-53. DOI:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.003071.

32. Little S.H., Chan K.L., Burwash I.G. Impact of blood pressure on the doppler echocardiographic assessment of aortic stenosis severity. Heart. 2007;93:848-55. DOI:10.1136/hrt.2006.098392.