1 / 39

Aortic stenosis – when echo and cath (or even echo and echo) don’t matcH

Paul Nolan, Galway University Hospitals. Aortic stenosis – when echo and cath (or even echo and echo) don’t matcH. Echo evaluation of AS. Define aetiology Quantitation of the severity Assessment of LV function Assessment of co-existing valvular lesions Assessment of secondary effects

cedric-tanner
Download Presentation

Aortic stenosis – when echo and cath (or even echo and echo) don’t matcH

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Paul Nolan, Galway University Hospitals Aortic stenosis – when echo and cath (or even echo and echo) don’t matcH

  2. Echo evaluation of AS • Define aetiology • Quantitation of the severity • Assessment of LV function • Assessment of co-existing valvular lesions • Assessment of secondary effects • Pulmonary pressures • Aortic dilatation

  3. Quantification of AS by echo • Peak velocity • Mean velocity • Peak gradient • Mean gradient • Aortic valve area • Continuity equation

  4. Jet velocity – too simple? • Otto 1997 • 123 asymptomatic patients • End point • Death • Aortic valve surgery • Jet velocity > 4m/s is an independent predictor of clinical outcome

  5. Quantification of AS by Cardiac Cath • Maximum instantaneous gradient • Equivalent to peak gradient by echo • Mean gradient • Equivalent to mean gradient be echo • Peak to peak gradient • Not equivalent to any echo measure • ?not physiological

  6. Quantification of the AVA in the Cath Lab • Gorlin formula • AVA = Cardiac output • 44.3 (SEP)(HR) √pressure gradient

  7. So why sometimes do they not agree?

  8. Technical sources of error in Echo • Doppler angle

  9. Technical sources of error in Echo • Doppler angle • Accuracy of the LVOT measurement • Any error is squared • Average of a number of measurements • Same measurement retained for serial echos • Placement of sample volume within LVOT • Non-simultaneous measurement of Ao and LVOT Doppler profiles • Especially important in irregular rhythms • Average of number of beats • Use max Ao and max LVOT velocities

  10. The “Gold Standard”

  11. Sources of error in the lab • Assessments of Cardiac Output can be prone to error • Common practice of comparing LV to femoral/radial pressure • Damped pressures • Positioning of LV catheter • Alignment of LV and Ao trace

  12. Effect of incorrect alignment Mean grad =47mmHg Mean grad =26mmHg

  13. So where is the error? • “we are constantly seeing these discrepancies between Cath Lab and echo gradients • Consultant Cardiologist • “on occassion we see these discrepancies, particularly in asymptomatic patients” • Physiologist rebuttal • “Do not trust the echo report unless you have personally seen the quality of the study” • “In many patients, echo will provide discordant data necessitating confirmatory hemodynamics in the cath lab” SusheelKodali, Columbia Univ Medical Centre

  14. Case 1

  15. Case 1

  16. Case 2 AVA=0.8cm2 Mean grad=54mmHg

  17. Pressure gradients are dependent on volume flow rate

  18. When gradient and AVA don’t match Low gradient, severe AVA High gradient, moderate AVA • Poor LV systolic function • Small LV cavity • Reduced SV • Reduced flow • Concomitant significant MR • Significant AI • Sepsis • Anaemia • High output states • Pressure recovery phenomenon In theory the AVA should reflect the severity of the stenosis better than the gradient

  19. AS and poor LV function • Reduced LV function • Reduced cardiac output and stroke volume • Reduced volume flow rates • Reduced gradient across aortic valve • Discordance between AVA and gradient • Severe AS by AVA but low gradient may reflect • Truly severe AS • Psuedo-severe AS

  20. Role of dobutamine • Dobutamine • Increase stroke volume • Gradual infusion of dobutamine (20ug/kg) • Truly severe AS • LVOT and Aortic velocities increase proportionally • AVA remains constant • Pseudo-severe AS • LVOT velocity increases disproportionally Ao velocity • AVA increases

  21. Role of dobutamine • Main role is to assess for inotropic reserve • Increase in stroke vol of >20% with dobutamine • Clinical question • Is the severe AS leading to poor LV function • Will replacing the valve improve function • Lack of inotropic reserve is an independent predictor of mortality post AVR

  22. Small LV cavity • Newer concept • Paradoxical low flow AS • Low flow/low grad severe AS with preserved EF • Small LV cavity • Hypertrophy • Reduced LV filling • Reduced stroke volume • Discordance between gradient and AVA • PLF AS patients have worse outcome

  23. We are measuring different things • Cath lab and echo measure different things • Doppler • Max flow velocity at the level of the vena contracta • Cath • Net pressure gradient between the LV and the aorta

  24. Pressure recovery • Conservation of energy • Blood flow decelerates as it goes through valve • Kinetic energy - velocity is “lost” • Converted into potential energy – pressure • Therefore we get a recovery of Ao pressure distal to the valve

  25. Pressure recovery • Extent of pressure recovery inv proportional to Ao CSA • Thus the max gradient by echo will over estimate the severity compared to the max grad by cardiac cath • Echo reflect the true valve orifice area • Cath reflects the physiological valve area

  26. So where are we now • Is there anything extra that echo can add • Can we aid in the clarification of these discrepancies

  27. Jet velocity – too simple? • Otto 1997 • 123 asymptomatic patients • End point • Death • Aortic valve surgery • Jet velocity > 4m/s is an independent predictor of clinical outcome

  28. Dimensionless Index • Potential error in echo calculation is determining LVOT diameter • Dimensionless index removes LVOT diameter from the assessment • DI= LVOT VTI/Ao VTI • Value of less than 0.25 represents severe AS

  29. Indexed aortic valve area • Body size can lead to an incorrect classification of AS severity based on AVA • Has been demonstrated that an iAVA of <0.6cm/m2 is a marker of mortality • Guidelines classify severe AS asiAVA of <0.6cm/m2

  30. Indexed aortic valve area • Case 1 • AVA of 1.2 cm2 • moderate • BSA = 2.1 m2 • iAVA=0.57 cm2/m2 • Case 2 • AVA of 0.9 cm2 • Severe • BSA= 1.3 m2 • iAVA=0.7 cm2/m2

  31. Remember Pressure recovery? • Cath reflects the physiological valve area • Can we somehow correct for pressure recovery

  32. Energy loss index • [(AVA x Aa)/(Aa-AVA)] • BSA

  33. Prognostic Value of Energy Loss Index in Asymptomatic Aortic Stenosis • Aortic valve events • AVR, HFH, CV mortality

  34. What about the third dimension? • Continuity eqn • Assumption that LVOT is circular • LVOT more elliptical • 3D TOE • Allows direct measurement of LVOT CSA

  35. Conclusion • There are sources of error in echo assessment of AS • Take care • Averaged values for LVOT • There are also sources of error in the Cath Lab • So be careful there too • And try and get the Consultants to be careful

  36. What I would take away • Use the suite of measurements/assessments • Use new measurements • Indexed AVA • Consider new techniques if available • If your gradient and AVA don’t match think about/explain why? • Poor LV • Small LV cavity/low stroke volume • Concomitant AI or MR

More Related