Search

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a low-flow state and may underestimate aortic stenosis (AS) severity. Single-high Doppler signals (HS) consistent with severe AS (peak velocity ≥4 m/s or mean gradient ≥40 mm Hg) are averaged down in current practice. The objective for the study was to determine the significance of HS in AF low-gradient AS (LGAS). Methods: One thousand five hundred forty-one patients with aortic valve area ≤1 cm 2 and left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50% were identified and classified as high-gradient AS (HGAS) (≥40 mm Hg) and LGAS ( Results: Mean age was 76±11 years, female 47%. Mean gradient was 51±12 in SR-HGAS, 48±10 in AF-HGAS, 31±5 in SR-LGAS, and 29±7 mm Hg in AF-LGAS, all P ≤0.001 versus SR-HGAS; HS were present in 33% of AF-LGAS. AVCS were available in 34%. Compared with SR-HGAS (2409 arbitrary units; interquartile range, 1581–3462) AVCS were higher in AF-HGAS (2991 arbitrary units; IQR1978–4229, P =0.001), not different in AF-LGAS (2399 arbitrary units; IQR1817–2810, P =0.47), and lower in SR-LGAS (1593 arbitrary units; IQR945–1832, P P =0.048). Compared with SR-HGAS, the age-, sex-, comorbidity index-, and time-dependent aortic valve replacement-adjusted mortality risk was higher in AF-HGAS (hazard ratio=1.82 [1.40–2.36], P P =0.03) but not different in AF-LGAS without HS or SR-LGAS (both P =not significant). Conclusions: Severe AS was common in AF-LGAS. AVCS in AF-LGAS were not different from SR-HGAS. AVCS were higher and mortality worse in AF-LGAS when HS were present.

Background— Microbubble safety concerns led to changes in product recommendations for patients with pulmonary hypertension. Noninvasive estimation of right ventricular systolic pressure (RVSP) is equivalent to pulmonary artery systolic pressure in the absence of pulmonary outflow obstruction. We analyzed the short- and long-term outcomes of patients who received microbubble contrast and those who did not during stress echocardiography (SE) according to resting RVSP. Methods and Results— From November 2003 to December 2007, 26 774 patients underwent SE. RVSP (mean, 32.6�9.6 mm Hg) was measured in 16 434 patients. Of these, 6164 (37.5%) received contrast for left ventricular opacification and 10 270 (62.5%) did not. Short-term (≤72 hours and ≤30 days) and long-term (4.3 years) end points were death and myocardial infarction. Analysis was done for rest RVSP cut-points ≥35, ≥50, and ≥60 mm Hg and tricuspid regurgitant velocities ≥2.7 ms −1 and ≥3.5 ms −1 . Adjusted Cox regression models were used. The contrast cohort comprised older patients (age, 67�12 versus 64�14 years; P P P =0.56; and myocardial infarction, 0.34 [0.11 to 1.03], P =0.06). Similar results were obtained at different RVSP and tricuspid regurgitant cut-points. Contrast agent–related adverse effects occurred in Conclusion— RVSP had no impact on predisposition to adverse outcomes in patients undergoing contrast SE in the population studied.

Background— Appropriateness criteria for stress imaging have been published to promote the effective use of stress nuclear scintigraphy and stress echocardiography. We sought to evaluate the application of the stress echocardiography appropriateness criteria to patients undergoing stress echocardiography in an academic medical center. Methods and Results— The stress echocardiography criteria were applied to 298 consecutive patients who underwent stress echocardiography. Patients were rated as appropriate, uncertain, inappropriate, or not classifiable. Results were compared with those of a previous analysis in the same patients using the single-photon computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (SPECT MPI) criteria. The level of agreement between 2 cardiac nurse abstractors for categorizing appropriateness by the stress echocardiography criteria was good (κ=0.72). Overall, 54% of patients were classified as appropriate, 8% as uncertain, and 19% as inappropriate; 19% were not classifiable. By the SPECT MPI criteria, 64% of patients were classified as appropriate, 9% as uncertain, and 18% as inappropriate; 9% were not classifiable ( P Conclusions— Applying stress echocardiography appropriateness criteria to a patient population is feasible, although 1 in 5 of our patients was not classifiable. Overall, the stress echocardiography criteria classified patients differently compared with the SPECT MPI criteria. Future refinements of the appropriateness criteria for stress imaging should address gaps in the criteria and disparities between the stress echocardiography and SPECT MPI criteria.