Contemporary use of balloon aortic valvuloplasty and evaluation of its success in different hemodynamic entities of severe aortic valve stenosis. Issue 1 (27th April 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Piayda, Kerstin; Wimmer, Anna Christina; Sievert, Horst; Hellhammer, Katharina; Afzal, Shazia; Veulemans, Verena; Jung, Christian; Kelm, Malte; Zeus, Tobias
• Is Part Of: Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions. Volume 97:Issue 1(2021)
• Page Start: E121
• Page End: E129
• Publication Date: 2020-04-27
• Subjects: aortic stenosis -- balloon valvuloplasty -- outcome assessment -- valvular heart disease; Heart -- Diseases -- Diagnosis -- Periodicals; Cardiac catheterization -- Periodicals; 616.1207572
• DOI: 10.1002/ccd.28950
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1522-1946

Abstract

Abstract: Objectives: To evaluate outcome assessment of percutaneous balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) in different flow and gradient patterns of severe aortic stenosis (AS). Background: The mean pressure gradient reduction after BAV is an often‐used surrogate parameter to evaluate procedural success. The definition of a successful BAV has not been evaluated in different subgroups of severe AS, which were introduced in the latest guidelines on the management of patients with valvular heart disease. Methods: In this observational study, consecutive patients from July 2009 to March 2018 undergoing BAV were divided into normal‐flow high‐gradient (NFHG), low‐flow low‐gradient (LFLG), and paradoxical low‐flow low‐gradient (pLFLG) AS. Baseline characteristics, hemodynamic, and clinical information were collected and compared. Results: One‐hundred‐fifty‐six patients were grouped into NFHG (n = 68, 43.5%), LFLG (n = 68, 43.5%), and pLFLG (n = 20, 12.8%) AS. Mean age of the study population was 81 years. Cardiogenic shock or refractory heart failure (46.8%) was the most common underlying reasons for BAV. Spearman correlation revealed that the mean pressure gradient reduction, determined by echocardiography, had a moderate correlation with the increase in the aortic valve area (AVA) in patients with NFHG AS (ρ: 0.529, p < .001) but showed no association in patients with LFLG (ρ: 0.017, p = .289) and pLFLG (ρ: 0.030, p = .889) AS. BAV as bridge to surgical or transcatheter aortic valve replacement was possible in 44.2% of patients, with no difference between groups ( p = .070). Conclusion: The mean pressure gradient reduction might be an adequate surrogate parameter for BAV success in patients with NFHG AS but is not suitable for patients with other hemodynamic entities.