Search

Recently, an aortic valve area (AVA) index (AVAI)0.6 cm(2)/m(2) was proposed as an indicator of severe aortic stenosis. The purpose of the present study was to clarify the prognostic value of the AVAI. We identified 103 consecutive asymptomatic patients (mean age 72 ± 11 years) with severe aortic stenosis, defined by an AVA of1.0 cm(2), who had not undergone aortic valve replacement on initial evaluation. During follow-up (median 36 ± 27 months), 31 aortic valve replacements and 20 cardiac deaths occurred. Multivariate analysis revealed that an AVAI0.6 cm(2)/m(2) (hazard ratio 2.6, 95% confidence interval 1.1 to 6.3; p = 0.03) and peak aortic jet velocity (Vp)4.0 m/s (hazard ratio 2.6, 95% confidence interval 1.2 to 5.8; p = 0.02) were associated with cardiac events but that an AVA0.75 cm(2) was not. The event-free survival of patients with an AVAI of ≥0.6 cm(2)/m(2) was better than that for those with an AVAI0.6 cm(2)/m(2) (86% vs 41% at 3 years, p0.01). Furthermore, patients with an AVAI of ≥0.6 cm(2)/m(2) and Vp of ≤4.0 m/s showed an excellent prognosis, but those without these findings had poorer outcomes. In conclusion, AVAI is a powerful predictor of adverse events in asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis. Furthermore, the combination of AVAI and Vp provides additional prognostic information. Watchful observations are required for timely aortic valve replacement in patients with an AVAI of0.6 cm(2)/m(2) or a Vp4.0 m/s.

Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is associated with an increased risk of aortic valve (AV) dysfunction, aortic dissection, and infective endocarditis. Therefore, its accurate diagnosis is critical. The morphological features of AVs are generally evaluated by transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) or transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), however, the difference in the diagnostic capability of these imaging modalities for detecting BAV remains unclear. Here, we compared these 2 methods to determine their accuracy, and to clarify each role in the diagnosis of BAV.This blind study evaluated 126 patients (age, 70.3 +/- 7.8 years) who subsequently underwent AV replacement. The number of AV cusps of each patient was estimated by TTE and TEE and compared to the number of AV written in the operative record. Patients with poor echocardiographic images were not excluded.Surgical findings showed 97 tricuspid AVs and 29 BAVs. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for the diagnosis of BAV were 61%, 81%, and 77%, respectively, for TTE and 86%, 90%, and 89%, respectively, for TEE. The accuracy of TEE was significantly higher than that of TTE (p = 0.016). In non-calcified AVs, the accuracy of TTE was similar to that of TEE (96%, each) whereas in calcified AVs, TTE had a lower accuracy than TEE (72% vs 87%, p = 0.011). The feasibility was significantly higher for TEE than for TTE (98% vs 90%, p = 0.003).TEE provides higher accuracy and feasibility than TTE in the diagnosis of BAV, and it should therefore be indicated when morphological features of AVs cannot be evaluated by TTE.