Search

Aims: To investigate (i) the association between pre-operative left atrial (LA) reservoir strain and post-operative atrial fibrillation (AF) and (ii) the incidence of post-operative ischaemic stroke events separately in bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) and tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) patients after surgical aortic valve replacement for isolated severe aortic stenosis (AS). Methods and results: We prospectively enrolled 227 patients (n = 133 BAV and n = 94 TAV) with isolated severe AS scheduled for aortic valve replacement. A comprehensive intra- and inter-observer validated pre-operative echocardiogram with an analysis of LA reservoir strain was performed. Post-operative AF was defined as a sustained (>30 s) episode of AF or atrial flutter. The timing of neurological events was defined in accordance with the Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 criteria for stroke. Post-operative AF occurred in 114 of 227 patients (50.2%), with no difference between BAV and TAV patients (48.1 vs. 53.1%, P = 0.452). Persisting post-operative AF at discharge was more frequent in BAV patients (29.7 vs. 8.0%, P = 0.005). Pre-operative LA reservoir strain was independently associated with post-operative AF (odds ratio = 1.064, 95% confidence interval 1.032-1.095, P < 0.001), with a significant interaction between LA reservoir strain and aortic valve morphology (Pinteraction = 0.002). The cumulative transient ischemic attack (TIA)/stroke incidence during follow-up was significantly higher in BAV patients (19.1 vs. 5.8% at 5 years). Conclusion: Pre-operative LA function was associated with post-operative AF after aortic valve replacement in BAV AS patients, while post-operative AF in TAV AS patients likely depends on transient post-operative alterations and traditional cardiovascular risk factors. TIA/stroke during follow-up was more common in BAV AS patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Left atrial imaging and detailed knowledge of its pathophysiology, especially in the context of heart failure, have become an increasingly important clinical and research focus. This development has been accelerated by the growth of non-invasive imaging modalities, advanced image processing techniques, such as strain imaging, and the parallel emergence of catheter-based left atrial interventions like pulmonary vein ablation, left atrial appendage occlusion, and others. In this review, we focus on novel imaging methods for the left atrium, their pathophysiological background, and their clinical relevance for various cardiac conditions and diseases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The study sought to compare echocardiographic with invasive hemodynamic data in patients with “paradoxic” aortic stenosis and in patients with conventionally defined severe aortic stenosis. Background: Controversy exists whether low gradient severe aortic stenosis despite preserved ejection fraction (“paradoxic” aortic stenosis; aortic valve area <1 cm2, mean gradient <40 mm Hg, ejection fraction >50%), which has been mainly diagnosed by echocardiography (echo), may be largely due to mistakes in echocardiographic measurements. Methods: We compared echocardiographic and invasive hemodynamic data from 58 patients (43% male, mean age 77 ± 5 years) with “paradoxic” aortic stenosis. Data of 22 patients (45% male, mean age 73 ± 7 years) with conventionally defined severe aortic stenosis area (aortic valve area ≤1 cm2, mean gradient >40 mm Hg, ejection fraction ≥50%) were also analyzed. Results: In patients with “paradoxic” aortic stenosis, orifice area by echo (0.80 ± 0.15 cm2) and catheterization showed modest agreement, whether stroke volume was measured by oxymetry (0.69 ± 0.16 cm2, bias 0.14 ± 0.17 cm2), or by thermodilution (0.85 ± 0.19 cm2, bias −0.03 ± 0.19 cm2). Mean systolic gradients were very similar (32 ± 7 mm Hg vs. 31 ± 6 mm Hg; bias −0.08 ± 7.8 mm Hg). In comparison, in patients with conventionally defined severe aortic stenosis, orifice area by echo was 0.72 ± 0.17 cm2 and by catheterization 0.51 ± 0.15 cm2 (oxymetry) and 0.68 ± 0.21 cm2 (thermodilution), respectively, and mean systolic gradient 51 ± 10 mm Hg and 55 ± 8 mm Hg, respectively. Ejection fractions did not differ significantly in both groups. Ascending aortic diameter was significantly smaller in the “paradoxic” aortic stenosis group than in patients with conventionally defined severe aortic stenosis (28 ± 5 mm vs. 31 ± 5 mm), and energy loss index was significantly larger (0.51 ± 0.12 cm2/m2 vs. 0.42 ± 0.09 cm2/m2, respectively). Heart rate and mean blood pressure during echo and catheterization were not significantly different. Conclusions: Occurrence of low gradient severe aortic stenosis despite preserved ejection fraction was confirmed by invasive hemodynamics and was not the result of a systematic bias in the echo calculation of aortic orifice area. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

We compared the measurements of the aortic valve area (AVA) using dual-source computed tomography (DSCT) in patients with mid to severe aortic stenosis to measurements using transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and invasive hemodynamic assessment. A total of 50 patients (mean age 73 ± 10 years) with suspected aortic stenosis were included. The computed tomographic data were acquired using DSCT with standardized scan parameters (2 × 64 × 0.6 mm collimation, 330-ms rotation, 120-kV tube voltage, 560 mA/rot tube current). After injection of 35 ml contrast agent (flow rate 5 ml/s), a targeted volume data set, ranging from the top of the leaflets to the infundibulum, was acquired. Ten cross-sectional data sets (slice thickness 1 mm, no overlap, increment 0.6 mm) were reconstructed during systole in 5% increments of the R-R interval. The AVA determined in systole by planimetry was compared to the calculated AVA values using the continuity equation on TTE and the Gorlin formula on catheterization. DSCT allowed the planimetry of the AVA in all patients. The mean AVA using DSCT was 1.16 ± 0.47 cm2 compared to a mean AVA of 1.04 ± 0.45 cm2 using TTE and 1.06 ± 0.45 cm2 using catheterization, with a significant correlation between DSCT/TTE (r = 0.93, p <0.001) and DSCT/cardiac catheterization (r = 0.97, p <0.001). However, DSCT demonstrated a slight, but significant, overestimation of the AVA compared to TTE (+0.12 ± 0.17 cm) and catheterization (+0.10 ± 0.12 cm2). In conclusion, DSCT permits one to assess the AVA with a high-image quality and diagnostic accuracy compared to TTE and invasive determination. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]