Published online before print April 3, 2006, doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.568824
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(Circulation. 2006;113:1738-1744.)
© 2006 American Heart Association, Inc.
Cardiovascular Surgery |
Influence of Preoperative Left Ventricular Contractile Reserve on Postoperative Ejection Fraction in Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis
From the Department of Cardiology, INSERM, ERI-12, University Hospital, Amiens (J.-P.Q., F.L., C.T.); Department of Cardiology, Henri Mondor Hospital, Créteil (J.-L.M., P.G.); Department of Cardiac Surgery, University Hospital, Strasbourg (H.P., P.O.); Department of Cardiology, General Hospital, Lorient (S.B., C.L.); Department of Cardiology, Clinique Saint-Augustin, Bordeaux (C.C., P.D.); and Department of Cardiology, General Hospital, Saint-Dizier (C.P.), France
Correspondance to Dr C. Tribouilloy, INSERM, ERI-12, Groupe Hospitalier Sud, Avenue René Laënnec, 80054 Amiens Cédex 1, France. E-mail Tribouilloy.christophe{at}chu-amiens.fr
Received June 15, 2005; revision received December 9, 2005; accepted January 20, 2006.
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Background— Dobutamine stress hemodynamics (DSH) has the potential to stratify operative risk in low-gradient aortic stenosis (AS), but little is known about the relation between left ventricle contractile reserve and postoperative left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). We sought to assess the value of DSH to predict postoperative improvement in LVEF.
Methods and Results— Sixty-six consecutive patients with symptomatic severe AS (aortic valve area 
1 cm2), LVEF 40%, and mean pressure gradient 40 mm Hg prospectively enrolled in the French multicenter study on low-gradient AS and who survived to aortic valvular replacement (AVR) were included. Preoperative contractile reserve was present in 46 patients (group I; 70%) and absent in 20 patients (group II; 30%). In the overall sample, 58% of patients improved by 2 New York Heart Association (NYHA) classes after AVR. Mean LVEF improved from 29±6% to 47±11% (P<0.0001). LVEF improved by 
10 EF units in 38 patients (83%) in group I and in 13 patients (65%) in group II. Mean LVEF improvement was similar in the 2 groups (19±10% versus 17±11%; P=0.54). On multivariable analysis, multivessel coronary artery disease (P=0.05) and baseline mean transaortic pressure gradient (P=0.01) were related to LVEF improvement, whereas contractile reserve was not.
Conclusions— LVEF increases in the majority of patients with low-gradient AS who survive after AVR. Although the absence of contractile reserve on DSH is related to high operative mortality, it does not predict the absence of LVEF recovery in patients surviving to AVR. These data further support the concept that surgery should not be contraindicated on the basis of absence of contractile reserve alone.
Key Words: echocardiography • stress • valves • ventricles
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Dobutamine stress hemodynamics (DSH) has the potential to stratify operative risk in the setting of low-flow/low-gradient aortic stenosis (AS).1,2 According to a recent multicenter study, patients with left ventricular (LV) contractile reserve by DSH have a relatively low operative risk (5%), whereas patients without contractile reserve have a high operative mortality (32%).1 Operative mortality also depends on other parameters such as baseline mean transaortic pressure gradient (MPG), associated coronary artery disease, and associated comorbidities.1,3
Editorial p 1718
Clinical Perspective p 1744
In most patients with low-gradient AS who survive after aortic valve replacement (AVR), postoperative LV ejection fraction (LVEF) improves, probably because preoperative LV systolic dysfunction was primarily related to afterload mismatch.4–6 However, in some patients LVEF remains unchanged because of extensive myocardial fibrosis, associated cardiomyopathy, or associated coronary artery disease.3 Improvement in LVEF after AVR has been reported to be positively related to female gender, presence of syncope, absence of hypertension, and preoperative mean gradient and inversely related to preoperative aortic valve area and presence of coronary artery disease.5–8 However, dobutamine hemodynamics was not systematically performed before surgery in the latter studies.5–8 On the other hand, the issue of postoperative LVEF was not addressed in other studies in which DSH was systematically performed.1,2 Therefore, we sought to assess the relation between LV contractile reserve by DSH and postoperative LVEF in patients with AS, low transvalvular gradient, and LV dysfunction.
|
Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Study Sample
Eighty patients with low-gradient (MPG
40 mm Hg), symptomatic severe AS (aortic valve area 1 cm2) with an EF 40% prospectively enrolled in the French multicenter study described previously1 underwent valvular replacement. All patients had a preoperative dobutamine Doppler hemodynamic study. Thirteen patients (16%) died during the postoperative period: 3 of 50 patients with contractile reserve died (2 of cardiogenic shock), and 10 of 30 patients without contractile reserve died (8 of cardiogenic shock). Patients who survived after the operative period and had postoperative evaluation of LVEF were included in the present study. Sixty-seven patients survived to the postoperative period. All had postoperative evaluation of LVEF except 1 who was lost to follow-up. Thus, 66 patients who survived to the 30-day period after AVR and had postoperative evaluation of LVEF form the sample of the present study. Thirty-seven patients (56%) received a mechanical prosthesis, 28 patients (42%) received a biological prosthesis, and 1 patient (2%) received a homograft. Seventeen patients (26%) underwent concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting. The study was approved by local institutional review boards, and informed consent was obtained from the patients before all procedures.
Echocardiography
All patients underwent a comprehensive Doppler echocardiographic study with the use of commercially available ultrasound systems. Details of the dobutamine stress Doppler study have been described previously.9 Briefly, after the baseline measurements, a dobutamine infusion was begun at 5 µg/kg body wt per minute and titrated upward to a maximal dose of 20 µg/kg per minute. LV outflow tract diameter was assumed to be constant at different flow states, and the baseline value was used to calculate stroke volume at baseline and during dobutamine infusion according to standard formulae.10 Transaortic gradients were calculated with the use of the simplified Bernoulli equation.11 Aortic valve area was calculated by the continuity equation.12 LVEF was calculated in all 66 patients before AVR and after the 30-day postoperative period according to biplane Simpson’s rule13 in 55 cases and was assessed visually14 in 11 cases.
Data Analysis
Dobutamine echocardiographic studies were evaluated offline in each center by a single experienced echocardiographer. Patients were classified into 2 groups according to the presence (group I) or absence (group II) of contractile reserve by DSH, defined by an increase in stroke volume of 20% compared with baseline value.1,2,9 All patients with contractile reserve had fixed AS, defined by an increase in valve area <0.3 cm2 with a final valve area 1 cm2 on dobutamine echocardiography.9,15 There were 46 patients with contractile reserve (group I; 70%) and 20 without contractile reserve (group II; 30%).
Follow-up
Follow-up clinical data were obtained in all patients at a mean interval of 26±20 months. The end points evaluated at follow-up were survival, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, and LVEF. Follow-up echocardiographic LVEF after AVR was obtained in all patients at a mean interval of 16±15 months (range, 1 to 62 months). The physicians who performed the postoperative echocardiography were blinded to previous dobutamine findings.
Statistical Analysis
Continuous data are presented as mean±SD values. Dichotomous data are presented as percentages. Univariate analysis was performed with the use of nonparametric statistical tests or parametric tests as needed. The 
2 test or the Fisher exact test was applied for dichotomous and categorical data. For continuous variables, a simple linear regression analysis was performed. Change in stroke volume and variables that were associated on univariate analysis (P<0.10) with change in LVEF and with postoperative NYHA class after AVR were entered into linear stepwise regression models allowing the determination of predictors of change in LVEF. Survival rates after AVR of patients with and without contractile reserve were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method, and difference was tested with the log-rank test. Two-tailed probability values <0.05 were considered statistically significant.
The authors had full access to the data and take full responsibility for its integrity. All authors have read and agree to the manuscript as written.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Patient Characteristics
The study sample included 19 women and 47 men with a mean age of 68±9 years; mean aortic valve area, 0.68±0.16 cm2; mean indexed valve area, 0.38±0.1 cm2/m2; mean cardiac index, 2.28±0.57 L/min per square meter; MPG, 31±6 mm Hg; and mean LVEF, 29±6%. Twenty-nine patients (44%) had a MPG
30 mm Hg, and 35 patients (53%) had an EF 30% preoperatively. All 66 patients complained of dyspnea at the first visit, and 59 patients (89%) were classified as NYHA class III or IV. Four patients had associated angina, and 1 had a history of syncope. Preoperative coronary angiography was performed in all patients. One, 2, or 3-vessel disease was present in 10, 4, and 8 patients, respectively. Forty-four patients (67%) had no significant coronary artery disease or normal coronary angiography. Eleven patients (17%) had a history of myocardial infarction, and 4 patients (6%) had previously undergone coronary artery bypass grafting.
Baseline Clinical and Hemodynamic Data
DSH studies were well tolerated in all cases. Dobutamine peak doses were strictly comparable in the 2 groups. The baseline clinical and hemodynamic data as well as stress hemodynamics data in each group are presented in Table 1.
|
Postoperative Functional Improvement
In the total sample, 94% of patients (62/66) improved after AVR by 1 NYHA functional class at follow-up, and 58% (38/66) improved by 2 NYHA functional classes. After AVR, 91% (60/66) were classified as NYHA class I or II, whereas 9% (6/66) remained in class III or IV. Five of the 60 patients in NYHA class I or II after AVR died during follow-up, 2 of sudden death and 3 of noncardiac causes. Four of the 6 patients in NYHA class III or IV after AVR died during follow-up, 3 of heart failure and 1 of respiratory failure.
In group I, 96% of patients (44/46) improved by 1 NYHA functional class after AVR, and 59% (27/46) improved by 2 NYHA functional classes. During follow-up, 93% (43/46) were classified as NYHA class I or II. In group II, 90% of patients (18/20) improved by 1 NYHA functional class after AVR (P=0.35 versus group I), and 55% (11/20) improved by 2 NYHA functional classes (P=0.50 versus group I). During follow-up, 85% (17/20) were classified as NYHA class I or II (P=0.36 versus group I).
The relationship between patients’ characteristics and functional status at follow-up on univariate analysis is shown in Table 2. Preoperative relative change in stroke volume with dobutamine was similar in patients in NYHA class I or II at follow-up and in those in NYHA class III or IV. Thus, presence or absence of contractile reserve was not related to functional status in the survivors after AVR. The only parameter related to functional status at follow-up was increase in LVEF after AVR. The mean increase in LVEF after AVR was 19±10% in patients in NYHA class I or II at follow-up compared with 8±11% in patients in class III or IV (P=0.013). LVEF at follow-up was 48±10% in patients in NYHA class I or II at follow-up and was 34±14% in patients in class III or IV at follow-up (P=0.005). On multivariable analysis, the only predictor of functional status at follow-up was postoperative increase in LVEF (P=0.009).
|
Postoperative Increase in EF
In the total sample, LVEF increased at follow-up from 29±6% preoperatively to 47±11% after AVR (P<0.0001), representing a mean increase of 18±10%.
In group I, LVEF significantly increased after AVR from 28±6% to 47±11% (P<0.0001), with a mean increase of 19±10%. In group II, LVEF increased after AVR from 31±6% to 48±11% (P=0.0001), with a mean increase of 17±11%. Postoperative increase in LVEF was similar in groups I and II (P=0.54) (Figure).
|
In group I, 38 of 46 patients (83%) obtained 10% improvement of LVEF after AVR compared with 13 of 20 patients (65%) in group II (P=0.20). The presence of contractile reserve had a positive predictive value for LV recovery (LVEF improvement 10%) of 83%, but the absence of contractile reserve had a negative predictive value for LV recovery of only 35%.
The relationships between preoperative characteristics and change in LVEF after AVR are shown in Table 3. LVEF increase after AVR was not significantly related to contractile reserve (19±10% and 17±11%; P=0.54). Increase in LVEF was lower in women, in the presence of a baseline mean gradient <30 mm Hg, and in the presence of multivessel coronary artery disease. On simple linear regression analysis, increase in LVEF after AVR was positively related to baseline mean gradient and to aortic valve area increase with dobutamine but was not significantly related to increase in stroke volume on preoperative DSH (P=0.91) (Table 4). On multivariable analysis, baseline mean gradient <30 mm Hg and presence of multivessel coronary disease were inversely related to LVEF increase after AVR (Table 5), whereas change in stroke volume with dobutamine was not related to LVEF increase after AVR (ß=0.027; t=0.234; P=0.82). Increase in LVEF (17.0±10% versus 17.3±11%; P=0.92) was similar in the lowest tertile compared with the highest tertile of dobutamine responses defined by the stroke volume increase.
|
|
|
Twenty-one patients had a preoperative LVEF <31% and a MPG <31 mm Hg (MPG, 25±4 mm Hg; mean LVEF, 24±5%). In this subset of patients, increase in LVEF after AVR was similar in patients with or without contractile reserve (14.7±7.7% versus 13.2±11%; P=0.56), and change in LVEF after AVR was not related to change in stroke volume on preoperative DSH (r=0.04; P=0.86).
Postoperative Survival
There were 9 deaths during the follow-up. Although operative mortality was extremely high in patients without contractile reserve compared with patients with contractile reserve (33% versus 6%), postoperative survival rates at 2 years (90±5% versus 92±7%; P=0.63) were not significantly different in patients with and without contractile reserve on preoperative DSH.
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
In patients with low-gradient AS, assessment of contractile reserve by DSH has the potential for operative risk stratification.1 The present study confirms that LVEF improves after AVR by
10% in 83% of patients with contractile reserve with an improvement in functional status in almost all of these patients (96%). However, the main result of this study is that exhausted contractile reserve is not systematically related to persistent LV dysfunction. In patients without contractile reserve who survive to the postoperative period, LVEF improved 10% in 65% of cases, and clinical status improved in 90% of cases.
Contractile Reserve and Postoperative Functional Status
Our results show that postoperative functional class NYHA is not related to preoperative LV contractile reserve. This is consistent with the other result that postoperative functional class is primarily related to increase in postoperative LVEF, which itself is not primarily determined by preoperative DSH.
Predictors of Increase in Postoperative LVEF
In patients with AS and LV dysfunction, improvement in LVEF after AVR has been reported to be associated with a better survival.16 Our results confirm the clinical importance of postoperative increase in LVEF in patients with low-gradient AS, which is related to functional status at follow-up. Previous reports suggest that a higher preoperative MPG is predictive of better postoperative ventricular function in patients with AS and low preoperative LVEF.6,8 In our study, postoperative improvement of LVEF was significantly greater in patients with higher preoperative MPG. According to our results, the influence of preoperative MPG on postoperative LV function therefore remains significant even in patients already selected by their low preoperative gradient. Coronary artery disease has been reported to be associated with a lower postoperative LVEF and a lower survival after AVR.3,6,8,16,17 In our study, the improvement of LVEF after AVR was lower in patients with multivessel coronary disease. Our results therefore suggest that in patients with low-gradient AS, the poorer postoperative prognosis associated with coronary disease could in part be due to a negative influence of coronary disease on the course of LV function after AVR.
Contractile Reserve and Postoperative LV Function
All group I patients in the present study referred for surgery had a "fixed" AS (change in aortic valve area <0.3 cm2) indicating severe AS.15 The main mechanism for LV dysfunction in these patients is afterload mismatch18; thus, postoperative improvement in LVEF is not surprising in this group.5,9,19,20
In contrast, in patients without contractile reserve, a low-flow state may persist during the dobutamine test. Because the calculated valve area is flow dependent,21 the true severity of AS may not be fully assessed.15 Causes of LV dysfunction may include a certain degree of intrinsic, irreversible myocardial dysfunction due to fibrosis or myocardial infarction.3,22 However, our study demonstrates that absence of contractile reserve does not preclude significant improvement in LVEF after AVR, when it is considered that two thirds of survivors after AVR without preoperative contractile reserve on DSH obtained 10% improvement of LVEF. Perhaps the main determinant for low preoperative LVEF in these patients was an afterload mismatch that cannot be corrected by inotropic stimulation with dobutamine. Exhausted contractile reserve in low-gradient AS therefore does not systematically indicate irreversible LV dysfunction.
Limitations of the Study
Operative mortality is mostly due to cardiogenic shock and is much higher in patients without contractile reserve.1 Thus, excluding from analysis patients who died postoperatively may have led to an underestimation of the influence of exhausted contractile reserve on postoperative LV function. However, this study demonstrates that irreversible LV dysfunction is not the rule in patients without contractile reserve because in those (approximately two thirds) who survived to the operation, the majority obtained improvement in LVEF. Our study sample may have been too small to demonstrate a significant difference in the percentage of patients experiencing recovery in LV function between those with and those without contractile reserve and was not designed to study long-term survival. Further studies may be needed to address those issues. Furthermore, our results must be interpreted in light of the variability of LVEF measurements, considering that most LVEF evaluations after AVR were performed by the referring physicians. However, the strong correlation between postoperative LVEF and functional NYHA class supports the idea that postoperative LVEF as evaluated in our study is clinically relevant. Finally, our results must be considered tentative because no statistical adjustment was made to probability values to account for the large number of statistical tests.
Conclusions
In the setting of low-gradient AS, postoperative improvement in LVEF is not related mainly to preoperative LV contractile reserve. In the patients with absence of contractile reserve on DSH, despite high operative mortality, postoperative LVEF as well as functional status often improves provided that the patients survive the postoperative period. Therefore, the results of DSH should be integrated with all relevant parameters (including primarily associated comorbidities, coronary artery disease, and baseline MPG) when the risk/benefit ratio for each individual patient is assessed. Finally, in view of the very poor prognosis of unoperated low-gradient AS and the potential benefit of valve replacement despite a higher operative risk, surgery should not be contraindicated on the sole basis of exhausted contractile reserve.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
Disclosures
None.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
1. Monin JL, Quere JP, Monchi M, Petit H, Baleynaud S, Chauvel C, Pop C, Ohlmann P, Lelguen C, Dehant P, Tribouilloy C, Gueret P. Low-gradient aortic stenosis: operative risk stratification and predictors for long-term outcome: a multicenter study using dobutamine stress hemodynamics. Circulation. 2003; 108: 319–324.
2. Nishimura RA, Grantham JA, Connolly HM, Schaff HV, Higano ST, Holmes DR Jr. Low-output, low-gradient aortic stenosis in patients with depressed left ventricular systolic function: the clinical utility of the dobutamine challenge in the catheterization laboratory. Circulation. 2002; 106: 809–813.
3. Powell DE, Tunick PA, Rosenzweig BP, Freedberg RS, Katz ES, Applebaum RM, Perez JL, Kronzon I. Aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis and severe left ventricular dysfunction. Arch Intern Med. 2000; 160: 1337–1341.
4. Smith N, McAnulty JH, Rahimtoola SH. Severe aortic stenosis with impaired left ventricular function and clinical heart failure: results of valve replacement. Circulation. 1978; 58: 255–264.
5. Connolly HM, Oh JK, Schaff HV, Roger VL, Osborn SL, Hodge DO, Tajik AJ. Severe aortic stenosis with low transvalvular gradient and severe left ventricular dysfunction: result of aortic valve replacement in 52 patients. Circulation. 2000; 101: 1940–1946.
6. Connolly HM, Oh JK, Orszulak TA, Osborn SL, Roger VL, Hodge DO, Bailey KR, Seward JB, Tajik AJ. Aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis with severe left ventricular dysfunction: prognostic indicators. Circulation. 1997; 95: 2395–2400.
7. Pereira JJ, Lauer MS, Bashir M, Afridi I, Blackstone EH, Stewart WJ, McCarthy PM, Thomas JD, Asher CR. Survival after aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis with low transvalvular gradients and severe left ventricular dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002; 39: 1356–1363.
8. Hwang MH, Hammermeister KE, Oprian C, Henderson W, Bousvaros G, Wong M, Miller DC, Folland E, Sethi G. Preoperative identification of patients likely to have left ventricular dysfunction after aortic valve replacement: participants in the Veterans Administration Cooperative Study on Valvular Heart Disease. Circulation. 1989; 80 (pt 1): I65–I76.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
9. Monin JL, Monchi M, Gest V, Duval-Moulin AM, Dubois-Rande JL, Gueret P. Aortic stenosis with severe left ventricular dysfunction and low transvalvular pressure gradients: risk stratification by low-dose dobutamine echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001; 37: 2101–2107.
10. Nishimura RA, Miller FA Jr, Callahan MJ, Benassi RC, Seward JB, Tajik AJ. Doppler echocardiography: theory, instrumentation, technique, and application. Mayo Clin Proc. 1985; 60: 321–343.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
11. Currie PJ, Seward JB, Reeder GS, Vlietstra RE, Bresnahan DR, Bresnahan JF, Smith HC, Hagler DJ, Tajik AJ. Continuous-wave Doppler echocardiographic assessment of severity of calcific aortic stenosis: a simultaneous Doppler-catheter correlative study in 100 adult patients. Circulation. 1985; 71: 1162–1169.
12. Skjaerpe T, Hegrenaes L, Hatle L. Noninvasive estimation of valve area in patients with aortic stenosis by Doppler ultrasound and two-dimensional echocardiography. Circulation. 1985; 72: 810–818.
13. Schiller NB, Shah PM, Crawford M, DeMaria A, Devereux R, Feigenbaum H, Gutgesell H, Reichek N, Sahn D, Schnittger I, Silverman NH, Tajik AJ, for the American Society of Echocardiography Committee on Standards, Subcommittee on Quantitation of Two-Dimensional Echocardiograms. Recommendations for quantitation of the left ventricle by two-dimensional echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 1989; 2: 358–367.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
14. Stamm RB, Carabello BA, Mayers DL, Martin RP. Two-dimensional echocardiographic measurement of left ventricular ejection fraction: prospective analysis of what constitutes an adequate determination. Am Heart J. 1982; 104: 136–144.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
15. deFilippi CR, Willett DL, Brickner ME, Appleton CP, Yancy CW, Eichhorn EJ, Grayburn PA. 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: 191–194.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
16. Morris JJ, Schaff HV, Mullany CJ, Rastogi A, McGregor CG, Daly RC, Frye RL, Orszulak TA. Determinants of survival and recovery of left ventricular function after aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 1993; 56: 22–29;discussion 29–30.
17. Blitz LR, Gorman M, Herrmann HC. Results of aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis with relatively low transvalvular pressure gradients. Am J Cardiol. 1998; 81: 358–362.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
18. Gunther S, Grossman W. Determinants of ventricular function in pressure-overload hypertrophy in man. Circulation. 1979; 59: 679–688.
19. Carabello BA, Green LH, Grossman W, Cohn LH, Koster JK, Collins JJ Jr. Hemodynamic determinants of prognosis of aortic valve replacement in critical aortic stenosis and advanced congestive heart failure. Circulation. 1980; 62: 42–48.
20. Ross J Jr. Afterload mismatch in aortic and mitral valve disease: implications for surgical therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1985; 5: 811–826.[Abstract]
21. Burwash IG, Pearlman AS, Kraft CD, Miyake-Hull C, Healy NL, Otto CM. Flow dependence of measures of aortic stenosis severity during exercise. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1994; 24: 1342–1350.[Abstract]
22. Di Bello V, Giorgi D, Viacava P, Enrica T, Nardi C, Palagi C, Grazia Delle Donne M, Verunelli F, Mariani MA, Grandjean J, Dell’Anna R, Di Cori A, Zucchelli G, Romano MF, Mariani M. Severe aortic stenosis and myocardial function: diagnostic and prognostic usefulness of ultrasonic integrated backscatter analysis. Circulation. 2004; 110: 849–855.
 |
|
 |
|
  P. Lancellotti, C. Szymanski, M. Moonen, C. Garweg, K. O'Connor, C. Tribouilloy, and L. A. Pierard Dynamic left ventricular dyssynchrony: a potential cause of no contractile reserve in patients with low-gradient aortic stenosis Eur J Echocardiogr, October 1, 2009; 10(7): 880 - 883. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. E. Halkos, E. P. Chen, E. L. Sarin, P. Kilgo, V. H. Thourani, O. M. Lattouf, J. D. Vega, C. D. Morris, T. Vassiliades, W. A. Cooper, et al. Aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. Ann. Thorac. Surg., September 1, 2009; 88(3): 746 - 751. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P V Ennezat, S Marechaux, B Iung, C Chauvel, T H LeJemtel, and P Pibarot Exercise testing and exercise stress echocardiography in asymptomatic aortic valve stenosis Heart, June 1, 2009; 95(11): 877 - 884. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. Tribouilloy, F. Levy, D. Rusinaru, P. Gueret, H. Petit-Eisenmann, S. Baleynaud, Y. Jobic, C. Adams, B. Lelong, A. Pasquet, et al. Outcome After Aortic Valve Replacement for Low-Flow/Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis Without Contractile Reserve on Dobutamine Stress Echocardiography J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., May 19, 2009; 53(20): 1865 - 1873. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M.-A. Clavel, E. Dumont, P. Pibarot, D. Doyle, R. De Larochelliere, J. Villeneuve, S. Bergeron, C. Couture, and J. Rodes-Cabau Severe valvular regurgitation and late prosthesis embolization after percutaneous aortic valve implantation. Ann. Thorac. Surg., February 1, 2009; 87(2): 618 - 621. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. B. Chambers Aortic stenosis Eur J Echocardiogr, January 1, 2009; 10(1): i11 - i19. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Tribouilloy and F. Levy Assessment and management of low-gradient, low ejection fraction aortic stenosis Heart, December 1, 2008; 94(12): 1526 - 1527. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. P. Dal-Bianco, B. K. Khandheria, F. Mookadam, F. Gentile, and P. P. Sengupta Management of Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., October 14, 2008; 52(16): 1279 - 1292. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M.-A. Clavel, C. Fuchs, I. G. Burwash, G. Mundigler, J. G. Dumesnil, H. Baumgartner, J. Bergler-Klein, R. S. Beanlands, P. Mathieu, J. Magne, et al. Predictors of Outcomes in Low-Flow, Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis: Results of the Multicenter TOPAS Study Circulation, September 30, 2008; 118(14_suppl_1): S234 - S242. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Sicari, P. Nihoyannopoulos, A. Evangelista, J. Kasprzak, P. Lancellotti, D. Poldermans, J.-U. Voigt, J. L. Zamorano, and on behalf of the European Association of Echocardi Stress echocardiography expert consensus statement: European Association of Echocardiography (EAE) (a registered branch of the ESC) Eur J Echocardiogr, July 1, 2008; 9(4): 415 - 437. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Levy, M. Laurent, J. L. Monin, J. M. Maillet, A. Pasquet, T. Le Tourneau, H. Petit-Eisenmann, M. Gori, Y. Jobic, F. Bauer, et al. Aortic Valve Replacement for Low-Flow/Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis: Operative Risk Stratification and Long-Term Outcome: A European Multicenter Study J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., April 15, 2008; 51(15): 1466 - 1472. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H. Subramanian, B. Kunadian, and J. Dunning Is it ever worth contemplating an aortic valve replacement on patients with low gradient severe aortic stenosis but poor left ventricular function with no contractile reserve? Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery, April 1, 2008; 7(2): 301 - 305. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J.-L. Monin, M. Monchi, M. E.W. Kirsch, H. Petit-Eisenmann, S. Baleynaud, C. Chauvel, D. Metz, C. Adams, J.-P. Quere, P. Gueret, et al. Low-gradient aortic stenosis: impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on survival Eur. Heart J., November 1, 2007; 28(21): 2620 - 2626. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. Cianfrocca, F. Pelliccia, A. Auriti, V. Guido, V. Pasceri, X. Li, G. Richichi, G. Mercuro, and M. Santini Levosimendan allows detection of contractile reserve in patients with chronic ischaemic left ventricular dysfunction and non-diagnostic dobutamine echocardiography Eur J Heart Fail, September 1, 2007; 9(9): 897 - 900. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. A. Carabello Aortic Stenosis: Two Steps Forward, One Step Back Circulation, June 5, 2007; 115(22): 2799 - 2800. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Bergler-Klein, G. Mundigler, P. Pibarot, I. G. Burwash, J. G. Dumesnil, C. Blais, C. Fuchs, D. Mohty, R. S. Beanlands, Z. Hachicha, et al. B-Type Natriuretic Peptide in Low-Flow, Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis: Relationship to Hemodynamics and Clinical Outcome: Results From the Multicenter Truly or Pseudo-Severe Aortic Stenosis (TOPAS) Study Circulation, June 5, 2007; 115(22): 2848 - 2855. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. A Pierard and P. Lancellotti Stress testing in valve disease Heart, June 1, 2007; 93(6): 766 - 772. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. E. Weyman The Year in Echocardiography J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., March 20, 2007; 49(11): 1212 - 1219. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. A. Lange and L. D. Hillis Dobutamine Stress Echocardiography in Patients With Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis Circulation, April 11, 2006; 113(14): 1718 - 1720. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||