Outcome of isolated aortic valve replacement in patients with classic and paradoxical low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid

Abstract

Objective

To analyze operative outcomes and mid-term results after isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) in low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis (LFLG AS) by comparing the 2 subcategories (classic low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis [CLFLG] and paradoxical low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis [PLFLG]).

Methods

This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data for all isolated AVR in LFLG AS performed in our center during the last 13 years (n = 198; CLFLG AS, n = 66, 33% and PLFLG AS, n = 132, 67%). Median follow-up was 3.7 ± 3.3 years.

Results

Preoperative mean gradient was 30.2 ± 8.8 mm Hg in the CLFLG AS group and 31.4. ± 7.0 mmHg in the PLFLG AS group (P = .001). Female sex, hypertension, and neurologic and renal disease were more frequent in the PLFLG AS group (P < .01) whereas advanced New York Heart Association class, atrial fibrillation, and pulmonary hypertension were more frequent in the CLFLG AS group (P < .01). In-hospital mortality was 3% in the CLFLG AS group and 2.3% in the PLFLG AS group, P = .08. One- and five-year mortality rates were significantly greater in the CLFLG AS group (27% and 42% vs 6% and 20% in the PLFLG AS group, respectively, P = .001). On follow-up, 90% of the total survivors were in New York Heart Association class I-II, and 51% of the patients in the CLFLG AS group had an improvement in their ventricular function.

Conclusions

AVR can be performed in LFLG AS with low in-hospital mortality. CLFLG AS carries similar in-hospital mortality to PLFLG AS but greater mid-term mortality. Surgery provided excellent functional status among survivors.

Related Topics

    loading  Loading Related Articles