Pediatric Cardiology

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 259–262 | Cite as

Management Strategy for Very Mild Aortic Valve Stenosis

  • P.J. Bartz
  • D.J. Driscoll
  • J.F. Keane
  • W.M. Gersony
  • C.J. Hayes
  • J.I. Brenner
  • W.M. O’Fallon
  • D.R. Pieroni
  • R.R. Wolfe
  • W.H. Weidman
Article

Abstract

It is unclear how often patients with very mild aortic stenosis (gradients <25 mmHg) need interval follow-up. The purpose of this study was to define the determinants of disease severity progression and to propose appropriate management strategies. It is known that congenital aortic stenosis is a progressive disease that requires long-term follow-up at consistent intervals. We studied 89 patients with very mild aortic stenosis. Cox proportional hazard modeling was performed to ascertain predictors of morbidity and mortality. Events were defined as valve surgery or death. Of the original 89 patients, 7 died (92% survival); one death was sudden and unexplained and six were noncardiac. Eighteen individuals were lost to follow-up (10 not located and 8 refused participation). Twelve (17%) had valve surgery. The minimum time interval between initial diagnosis of very mild aortic stenosis and surgery was 4.6 years (mean, 14.0). Age at diagnosis, gender, initial gradient, initial gradient/age, and aortic regurgitation were found not to be predictive of outcome. However, the slope of the transaortic gradient [change of gradient/time (years)] was predictive of outcome (hazard ratio of 1.69; confidence interval, 1.4–2.2). At least 17% of these patients progress to require operation. For patients with a gradient slope <1.1, evaluation every 4 or 5 years is recommended. For patients with a gradient slope >1.2, evaluation every 1 or 2 years seems prudent.

Key words

Congenital heart disease Disease progression Outcome study 

References

  1. 1.
    Bengur AR, Snider AR, Serwer GA, Peters J, Rosenthal A (1989) Usefulness of the Doppler mean gradient in evaluation of children with aortic valve stenosis and comparison to gradient at catheterization. Am J Cardiol 64:756–761CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ferencz C, Rubin JD, McCarter RJ, et al. (1985) Congenital heart disease; prevalence at livebirth. The Baltimore–Washington Infant Study. Am J Epidemiol 121:31–36PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Keane JF, Driscoll DJ, Gersony WM, et al. (1993) Second natural history study of congenital heart defects. Results of treatment of patients with aortic valvar stenosis. Circulation 56:I5–I12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kitchiner D, Jackson M, Malaiya N, et al. (1994) Incidence and prognosis of obstruction of the left vpntricular outflow tract in Liverpool (1960–91): a study of 313 patients. Br Heart J 71:588–595PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Miettinen OS, Rees JK (1977) Report from the Joint Study on the Natural History of Congenital Heart Defects. II. Methodology. Circulation 56:I5–I12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    O’Fallon WM, Crowson CS, Rings LJ, et al. (1993) Second natural history study of congenital heart defects. Materials and methods. Circulation 87:I4–I15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rubin JD, Ferencz C, McCarter RJ, et al. (1985) Congenital cardiovascular malformations in the Baltimore–Washington area. Md Med J 34:1079–1083PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wagner HR, Ellison RC, Keane JF, Humphries OJ, Nadas AS (1977) Clinical course in aortic stenosis. Circulation 56:I47–I56PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • P.J. Bartz
    • 1
  • D.J. Driscoll
    • 1
  • J.F. Keane
    • 6
  • W.M. Gersony
    • 3
  • C.J. Hayes
    • 3
  • J.I. Brenner
    • 2
  • W.M. O’Fallon
    • 1
  • D.R. Pieroni
    • 5
  • R.R. Wolfe
    • 4
  • W.H. Weidman
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Pediatric CardiologyMayo Clinic College of MedicineRochesterUSA
  2. 2.Johns Hopkins University School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA
  3. 3.Columbia University College of Physicians & SurgeonsNew YorkUSA
  4. 4.The Children’s Hospital of DenverDenverUSA
  5. 5.Children’s Hospital of BuffaloBuffaloUSA
  6. 6.The Children’s HospitalBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations