Aortic stenosis pathophysiology: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 61: Line 61:
*[[Aortic stenosis echocardiography|Echocardiography]] is fairly accurate in the assessment of the severity of aortic stenosis in patients with normal or near normal [[cardiac output]]. However, [[Exercise stress testing#Exercise/Pharmacologic Stress Echocardiography|dobutamine stress echocardiography]] or [[Aortic stenosis cardiac catheterization|cardiac catheterization]] may be required to accurately assess the severity of aortic stenosis in patients with [[cardiac output|low output]] [[aortic stenosis]].
*[[Aortic stenosis echocardiography|Echocardiography]] is fairly accurate in the assessment of the severity of aortic stenosis in patients with normal or near normal [[cardiac output]]. However, [[Exercise stress testing#Exercise/Pharmacologic Stress Echocardiography|dobutamine stress echocardiography]] or [[Aortic stenosis cardiac catheterization|cardiac catheterization]] may be required to accurately assess the severity of aortic stenosis in patients with [[cardiac output|low output]] [[aortic stenosis]].


*The [[aortic valve area]] should increase to more than  1.2 cm2 with a dobutamine infusion, and the [[Intravascular pressure gradient|mean pressure gradient]] should rise above 30 mm Hg. If there is a failure to achieve these improvements, early surgical mortality is 32-33%, but it is only 5–7% in those patients who can augment their contractility and gradient. Five years survival after surgery was 88% in patients with improved contractility, and only 10–25% in patients who could not augment their contractility.
*The [[aortic valve area]] should increase to more than  1.2 cm2 with a dobutamine infusion and the [[Intravascular pressure gradient|mean pressure gradient]] should rise above 30 mm Hg. If there is a failure to achieve these improvements, early surgical mortality is 32-33%, but it is only 5–7% in those patients who can augment their contractility and gradient. Five years survival after surgery was 88% in patients with improved contractility, and only 10–25% in patients who could not augment their contractility.


===ACC/AHA Guidelines- Recommendation <ref name="pmid18848134">{{cite journal| author=Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Chatterjee K, de Leon AC, Faxon DP, Freed MD et al.| title=2008 focused update incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to revise the 1998 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease). Endorsed by the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. | journal=J Am Coll Cardiol | year= 2008 | volume= 52 | issue= 13 | pages= e1-142 | pmid=18848134 | doi=10.1016/j.jacc.2008.05.007 | pmc= | url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=18848134  }} </ref>===
===ACC/AHA Guidelines- Recommendation <ref name="pmid18848134">{{cite journal| author=Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Chatterjee K, de Leon AC, Faxon DP, Freed MD et al.| title=2008 focused update incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to revise the 1998 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease). Endorsed by the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. | journal=J Am Coll Cardiol | year= 2008 | volume= 52 | issue= 13 | pages= e1-142 | pmid=18848134 | doi=10.1016/j.jacc.2008.05.007 | pmc= | url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=18848134  }} </ref>===

Revision as of 18:03, 16 October 2012

Aortic Stenosis Microchapters

Home

Patient Information

Overview

Historical Perspective

Classification

Pathophysiology

Causes

Differentiating Aortic Stenosis from other Diseases

Epidemiology and Demographics

Risk Factors

Natural History, Complications and Prognosis

Diagnosis

History and Symptoms

Physical Examination

Cardiac Stress Test

Electrocardiogram

Chest X Ray

CT

MRI

Echocardiography

Cardiac Catheterization

Aortic Valve Area

Aortic Valve Area Calculation

Treatment

General Approach

Medical Therapy

Surgery

Percutaneous Aortic Balloon Valvotomy (PABV) or Aortic Valvuloplasty

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR)

TAVR vs SAVR
Critical Pathway
Patient Selection
Imaging
Evaluation
Valve Types
TAVR Procedure
Post TAVR management
AHA/ACC Guideline Recommendations

Follow Up

Prevention

Precautions and Prophylaxis

Cost-Effectiveness of Therapy

Future or Investigational Therapies

Case Studies

Case #1

Aortic stenosis pathophysiology On the Web

Most recent articles

Most cited articles

Review articles

CME Programs

Powerpoint slides

Images

American Roentgen Ray Society Images of Aortic stenosis pathophysiology

All Images
X-rays
Echo & Ultrasound
CT Images
MRI

Ongoing Trials at Clinical Trials.gov

US National Guidelines Clearinghouse

NICE Guidance

FDA on Aortic stenosis pathophysiology

CDC on Aortic stenosis pathophysiology

Aortic stenosis pathophysiology in the news

Blogs on Aortic stenosis pathophysiology

Directions to Hospitals Treating Aortic stenosis pathophysiology

Risk calculators and risk factors for Aortic stenosis pathophysiology

Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1]; Associate Editor(s)-In-Chief: Mohammed A. Sbeih, M.D. [2], Lakshmi Gopalakrishnan, M.B.B.S. [3] Assistant Editor-In-Chief: Kristin Feeney, B.S. [4]

Overview

Aortic stenosis causes an impedance to antegrade blood flow which leads to chronic pressure overload in the left ventricle. The most common complication of aortic stenosis is left ventricular hypertrophy. The obstruction of flow in aortic stenosis can occur not only at the level of the aortic valve itself, but also at the subvalvular (below the aortic valve) or supravalvular (above the aortic valve) levels.

Left Ventricular Hypertrophy

Long-standing aortic stenosis exposes the left ventricle to prolonged pressure overload which leads to concentric hypertrophy.[1][2][3] The left ventricular wall increases in thickness (i.e. concentric hypertrophy occurs) as a result of the parallel replication of the sarcomeres.

Diastolic Dysfunction

During the initial period of concentric hypertrophy, the left ventricle is not dilated and there is preservation of the left ventricular systolic function. Diastolic function, however, may be reduced due to a reduction in diastolic compliance [4][5][5][6].

This diastolic dysfunction may in turn lead to a rise in pulmonary capillary wedge pressure and consequently lead to dyspnea. Cardiac output may also be reduced as a result of diastolic dysfunction and impaired filling of the left ventricle. Early in the course of aortic stenosis, there may be a failure to augment cardiac output during exercise resulting in dyspnea on exertion.

Systolic Dysfunction

Later in the course of aortic stenosis, left ventricular dysfunction may develop due to a variety of pathophysiological processes. Systolic dysfunction is associated with a poor prognosis and it often does not partially or fully reverse following operative repair[5] .

Excess Hypertrophy Causes Systolic Dysfunction

The massive concentric hypertrophy, characterized by a reduced diastolic radius-to-wall thickness ratio, has shown to initially counter balance the increased systolic left ventricular pressure; nevertheless, if this process continues, an inverse relationship has been observed such that the ejection fraction eventually goes down as the left ventricular mass increases beyond a certain point.[7][5][8][9].

Myocardial Ischemia

The hypertrophied left ventricle and the prolonged ejection time (the time for the heart to eject blood) result in an increase in the myocardial oxygen requirements. In addition, the elevated diastolic filling pressure reduces the gradient between the aorta and the right atrium ("the height of the waterfall") which normally drives coronary blood flow. There may be a relative reduction in the density of the capillary network. The hypertrophied ventricle may also compress the capillaries. All of the above lead to a reduction in coronary blood flow even in the absence of obstructive epicardial stenosis. This may lead to subendocardial ischemia during stress or exercise[10][11].

Myocardial Fibrosis

Myocardial scarring or fibrosis may develop with prolonged aortic stenosis, probably due to chronic subendocardial ischemia or increased wall stress.

Dyssynchronous Contraction

Another factor that may contribute to the reduced left ventricular systolic function is the dyssynchronous contraction subsequent to regional wall motion abnormalities, fibrosis or ischemia.[12]

Atrial Fibrillation

The stiff non-compliant left ventricle can become increasingly dependent on the left atrium for filling. The presence of atrial fibrillation and the loss of atrial contractility can result in reduced left ventricular filling and reduced cardiac output.

Pressure Gradient & Valve Area

When the aortic valve becomes stenosed, it can result in the formation of a pressure gradient between the left ventricle (LV) and the aorta [13]. The more constricted the valve is, the bigger the gradient between the LV and the aorta is.

For instance, the pressure gradient in patients with mild AS might be 20 mmHg. This means that, at peak systole, while the LV may generate a pressure of 140 mmHg, the pressure that is transmitted into the aorta will only be 120 mmHg. Therefore, while a blood pressure cuff may measure a normal systolic blood pressure the actual pressure generated by and inside the LV would be considerably higher. As the left ventricle fails, it may no longer be able to mount the contractility necessary to generate a large gradient across the aortic valve.

Therefore, the absence of a large gradient across the aortic valve does not exclude the presence of critical aortic stenosis. The presence of a low gradient and a low ejection results in a low flow aortic stenosis. It is for this reason that the best measure of the severity of aortic stenosis is the aortic valve area and not the aortic valve gradient.

Aortic valve area

Aortic valve area calculation

Subvalvular Gradients in AS in the Absence of Anatomic Obstruction

Subvalvular pressure gradients are often present in patients with severe aortic stenosis in the absence of an anatomic subvalvular obstruction. In fact, the subvalvular pressure gradients constitute around 50% of the total measured transvalvular gradient. The extent of increase in cardiac output during exercise is inversely related to the magnitude of subvalvular gradient.[14]

Flow Velocity

If the left ventricular function and contractility are preserved, a flow velocity across the stenosed valve of at least 2.6 m/sec is deemed consistent with aortic stenosis. This is based on echocardiographic estimation of the aortic jet velocity, the aortic valve area and the mean transvalvular gradient. The aortic valve becomes calcified in aortic valve sclerosis (not stenosis); however, the aortic jet velocity is ≤ 2.5 m/sec (without a significant gradient). Aortic valve sclerosis is commonly characterized by a focal thickening of the aortic cusps with calcific nodules generally at the base of leaflets and a transvalvular velocity within the normal range (Vmax <2 m/s). Until few years ago, aortic valve sclerosis was considered to be a physiologic process related to aging without any clinical relevance. However, aortic valve sclerosis is not observed in about 50% of people over 80 years old. Furthermore, several experimental and clinical studies have demonstrated that aortic valve sclerosis could represent an active phenomenon significantly related to the risk factors of atherosclerosis[15] [16].

Low Flow, Low Gradient, Low Ejection Fraction Aortic Stenosis

If ventricular systolic dysfunction is present, there may be only a moderate transvalvular gradient or low flow aortic stenosis. The presence of fibrosis in the left ventricle may cause an incomplete recovery after aortic valve replacement[5] . This scenario can also occur among patients in whom there is a history of myocardial infarction due to the absence of sufficient contractility to mount an aortic gradient. It may also occur when myocardial fibrosis develops due to longstanding aortic stenosis.

Definition

  1. An aortic valve areas < 1.0 cm2
  2. A left ventricular ejection fraction < 40%
  3. A mean pressure difference or gradient across the aortic valve of < 30 mm Hg

Assessment

  • The aortic valve area should increase to more than 1.2 cm2 with a dobutamine infusion and the mean pressure gradient should rise above 30 mm Hg. If there is a failure to achieve these improvements, early surgical mortality is 32-33%, but it is only 5–7% in those patients who can augment their contractility and gradient. Five years survival after surgery was 88% in patients with improved contractility, and only 10–25% in patients who could not augment their contractility.

ACC/AHA Guidelines- Recommendation [17]

Class IIa

1. Dobutamine stress echocardiography is reasonable to evaluate patients with low-flow/low-gradient aortic stenosis and left ventricular dysfunction. (Level of Evidence: B)

2. Cardiac catheterization for hemodynamic measurements with infusion of dobutamine can be useful for evaluation of patients with low-flow/low-gradient aortic stenosis and left ventricular dysfunction. (Level of Evidence: C)

Relationship of Hemodynamic Severity to Symptoms of Aortic Stenosis

  • The valve area is less than 1.0 cm2.
  • The jet velocity is over 4.0 m/sec.
  • Mean transvalvular pressure gradient exceeds 40 mm Hg.
  • However, many patients develop symptoms only when more severe valve obstruction is present, other patients become symptomatic at less severe degree of stenosis, particularly if there is coexisting aortic regurgitation.

ACC/AHA Guidelines- Severity Classification [17]

Indicator Mild Moderate Severe
Jet velocity (m per s) Less than 3.0 3.0–4.0 Greater than 4.0
Mean gradient (mm Hg)† Less than 25 25–40 Greater than 40
Valve area (cm2) Greater than 1.5 1.0–1.5 Less than 1.0
Valve area index (cm2 per m2) Less than 0.6

Valve gradients are flow dependent. They should be assessed with knowledge of cardiac output or antegrade flow across the valve when used to estimate of severity of valve stenosis.

Pathology Findings

Gross Pathology

Microscopic Pathology

Guideline Resources

2008 Focused Update Incorporated Into the ACC/AHA 2006 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 1998 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease) Endorsed by the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons[17]

References

  1. Sasayama S, Ross J, Franklin D, Bloor CM, Bishop S, Dilley RB (1976). "Adaptations of the left ventricle to chronic pressure overload". Circulation Research. 38 (3): 172–8. PMID 129304. Retrieved 2012-04-10. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  2. Gaasch WH (1979). "Left ventricular radius to wall thickness ratio". The American Journal of Cardiology. 43 (6): 1189–94. PMID 155986. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help); |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  3. Spann JF, Bove AA, Natarajan G, Kreulen T (1980). "Ventricular performance, pump function and compensatory mechanisms in patients with aortic stenosis". Circulation. 62 (3): 576–82. PMID 6446989. Retrieved 2012-04-10. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  4. Gaasch WH, Levine HJ, Quinones MA, Alexander JK (1976). "Left ventricular compliance: mechanisms and clinical implications". The American Journal of Cardiology. 38 (5): 645–53. PMID 136186. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help); |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  5. 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Murakami T, Hess OM, Gage JE, Grimm J, Krayenbuehl HP. [[]] http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=2938847. Retrieved 2012-04-10. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  6. Gaasch WH (1994). "Diagnosis and treatment of heart failure based on left ventricular systolic or diastolic dysfunction". JAMA : the Journal of the American Medical Association. 271 (16): 1276–80. PMID 8151903. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help); |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  7. Krayenbuehl HP, Hess OM, Ritter M, Monrad ES, Hoppeler H (1988). "Left ventricular systolic function in aortic stenosis". European Heart Journal. 9 Suppl E: 19–23. PMID 2969811. Retrieved 2012-04-10. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  8. Gunther S, Grossman W (1979). "Determinants of ventricular function in pressure-overload hypertrophy in man". Circulation. 59 (4): 679–88. PMID 154367. Retrieved 2012-04-10. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  9. Huber D, Grimm J, Koch R, Krayenbuehl HP (1981). "Determinants of ejection performance in aortic stenosis". Circulation. 64 (1): 126–34. PMID 7237709. Retrieved 2012-04-10. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  10. Marcus ML, Doty DB, Hiratzka LF, Wright CB, Eastham CL (1982). "Decreased coronary reserve: a mechanism for angina pectoris in patients with aortic stenosis and normal coronary arteries". N Engl J Med. 307 (22): 1362–6. doi:10.1056/NEJM198211253072202. PMID 6215582.
  11. Carabello BA (2002). "Clinical practice. Aortic stenosis". N Engl J Med. 346 (9): 677–82. doi:10.1056/NEJMcp010846. PMID 11870246.
  12. Jin XY, Pepper JR, Gibson DG (1996). "Effects of incoordination on left ventricular force-velocity relation in aortic stenosis". Heart (British Cardiac Society). 76 (6): 495–501. PMC 484601. PMID 9014797. Retrieved 2012-04-10. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  13. Lilly LS (editor) (2003). Pathophysiology of Heart Disease (3rd ed. ed.). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. ISBN 0-7817-4027-4.
  14. Laskey WK, Kussmaul WG (2001). "Subvalvular gradients in patients with valvular aortic stenosis: prevalence, magnitude, and physiological importance". Circulation. 104 (9): 1019–22. PMID 11524395. Retrieved 2012-04-12. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  15. Branch KR, O'Brien KD, Otto CM (2002). "Aortic valve sclerosis as a marker of active atherosclerosis". Curr Cardiol Rep. 4 (2): 111–7. PMID 11827633.
  16. {{Faggiano P, D'Aloia A, Antonini-Canterin F, Pinamonti B, DiLenarda A, Brentana L, Metra M, Nodari S, Dei Cas L. Usefulness of cardiac calcification on two-dimensional echocardiography for distinguishing ischemic from nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy: a preliminary report. J Cardiovasc Med. 2006.}}
  17. 17.0 17.1 17.2 Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Chatterjee K, de Leon AC, Faxon DP, Freed MD; et al. (2008). "2008 focused update incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to revise the 1998 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease). Endorsed by the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons". J Am Coll Cardiol. 52 (13): e1–142. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2008.05.007. PMID 18848134.

Template:WH Template:WS