Impact of classic and paradoxical low flow on survival after aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis

BackgroundLow flow (LF) can occur with reduced (classic) or preserved (paradoxical) left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to compare outcomes of patients with low ejection fraction (LEF), paradoxical low flow (PLF), and normal flow (NF) after aortic valve replacement (AVR).MethodsWe examined 1,154 patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) who underwent AVR with or without coronary artery bypass grafting.ResultsAmong these patients, 206 (18%) had LEF as defined by LVEF of 35 ml ∙ m2. Aortic valve area was lower in low flow/LVEF groups (LEF: 0.71 ± 0.20 cm2 and PLF: 0.65 ± 0.23 cm2 vs. NF: 0.77 ± 0.18 cm2; p < 0.001). The 30-day mortality was higher (p < 0.001) in LEF and PLF groups than in the NF group (6.3% and 6.3% vs. 1.8%, respectively). SVi and PLF group were independent predictors of operative mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 1.18, p < 0.05; and OR: 2.97, p = 0.004; respectively). At 5 years after AVR, overall survival was 72 ± 4% in LEF group, 81 ± 2% in PLF group, and 85 ± 2% in NF group (p < 0.0001).ConclusionsPatients with LEF or PLF AS have a higher operative risk, but pre-operative risk score accounted only for LEF and lower LVEF. Patients with LEF had the worst survival outcome, whereas patients with PLF and normal flow had similar survival rates after AVR. As a major predictor of perioperative mortality, SVi should be integrated in AS patients’ pre-operative evaluation.