Pediatric Cardiology

, Volume 39, Issue 8, pp 1547–1553 | Cite as

Echocardiographic Follow-Up of Congenital Aortic Valvular Stenosis II

  • Ayşe Güler Eroğlu
  • Sezen Ugan Atik
  • Betül Çinar
  • Murat Tuğberk Bakar
  • İrfan Levent Saltik
Original Article


We evaluated the natural course of congenital aortic valvular stenosis (AVS) and factors affecting AVS progression during long-term follow-up with echocardiography. Medical records of 388 patients with AVS were reviewed; patients with concomitant lesions other than aortic regurgitation (AR) were excluded. Trivial AVS was defined as a transvalvular Doppler peak systolic instantaneous gradient of < 25 mmHg; mild stenosis, 25–49 mmHg; moderate stenosis, 50–75 mmHg; and severe stenosis, > 75 mmHg. Median age of the patients was 3 years (range 0 day to 21 years), and 287 (74%) were male. A total of 355 patients were followed with medical treatment alone for a median of 4.6 years (range 1 month to 20.6 years), and the degree of AVS increased in 75 (21%) patients. The risk of AVS progression was higher when AVS was diagnosed in neonates (OR 4.29, CI 1.81–10.18, p = 0.001) and infants (OR 3.79, CI 2.21–6.49, p = 0.001). After the infancy period, bicuspid valve morphology increased AVS progression risk (OR 2.4, CI 1.2–4.6, p = 0.034). Patients with moderate AVS were more likely to have AVS progression (OR 2.59, CI 1.3–5.1, p = 0.006). Bicuspid valve morphology increased risk of AR development/progression (OR 1.77, CI 1.1–2.7, p = 0.017). The patients with mild and moderate AVS were more likely to have AR development/progression (p = 0.001). The risk of AR development/progression was higher in patients with AVS progression (OR 2.25, CI 1.33–3.81, p = 0.002). Newborn babies and infants should be followed more frequently than older patients according to disease severity. Bicuspid aortic valve morphology and moderate stenosis are risk factors for the progression of AVS and AR.


Aortic valvular stenosis Aortic regurgitation Bicuspid aortic valve Echocardiography 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.


  1. 1.
    Samanek M, Voriskova M (1999) Congenital heart disease among 815,569 children born between 1980 and 1990 and their 15-year survival; a prospective Bohemia survival study. Pediatr Cardiol 20:411–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vlahos AP, Marx GR, McElhinney D et al (2008) Clinical utility of Doppler echocardiography in assessing aortic stenosis severity and predicting need for intervention in children. Pediatr Cardiol 29:507–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nishimura RA, Pieroni DR, Bierman FZ et al (1993) Second natural history study of congenital heart defects. Aortic stenosis: echocardiography. Results of treatment of patients with aortic valvar stenosis. Circulation 87:66–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eroglu AG, Babaoglu K, Saltik L et al (2006) Echocardiographic follow-up of congenital aortic valvular stenosis. Pediatr Cardiol 27:713–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lopez L, Colan SD, Frommelt PC et al (2010) Recommendations for quantification methods during the performance of a pediatric echocardiogram: a report from the Pediatric Measurements Writing Group of the American Society of Echocardiography Pediatric and Congenital Heart Disease Council. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 23:465–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cheitlin MD, Alpert JS, Armstrong WF et al (1997) ACC/AHA Guidelines for the Clinical Application of Echocardiography. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Clinical Application of Echocardiography). Developed in collaboration with the American Society of Echocardiography. Circulation 95:1686–1744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stout KK, Otto CM (2003) Quantification of valvular aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2:54–58Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cantinotti M, Giordano R, Emdin M et al (2017) Echocardiographic assessment of pediatric semilunar valve disease. Echocardiography 34:1360–1370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Karamlou T, Shen I, Alsoufia B et al (2005) The influence of valve physiology on outcome following aortic valvotomy for congenital bicuspid valve in children: 30 year results from a single institution. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 27:81–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Latson LA (1998) Aortic stenosis: valvular, supravalvular, and fibromuscular subralvular. In: Garson A, Bricker JT, McNamara DG (eds) The science and practice of pediatric cardiology, 2nd edn. Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia, pp 1257–1276Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bonow RO, Carabello B, de Leon AC Jr et al (1998) Guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: executive summary; a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Management of Patients with Valvular Heart Disease. Circulation 98:1949–1984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zoghbi WA, Enriquez-Sarano M, Foster E et al (2003) American Society of Echocardiography. Recommendations for evaluation of the severity of native valvular regurgitation with two-dimensional and Doppler echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 16:777–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO et al (2017) 2017 AHA/ACC focused update of the 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation 135:e1159–e1195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ishii M, Jones M, Shiota T et al (1998) What is the validity of continuous wave Doppler grading of aortic regurgitation severity? A chronic animal model study. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 11:332–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Perry GJ, Helmcke F, Nanda NC, Byard C, Soto B (1987) Evaluation of aortic insufficiency by Doppler color flow mapping. J Am Coll Cardiol 9:952–959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kimball TR, Michelfelder EC (2008) Echocardiography. In: Allen HD, Driscoll DJ, Shaddy RE, Feltes TF (eds) Moss and Adams’ heart disease in infants, children, and adolescents, 7th edn. Lipincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 137–138Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Horstkqtte D, Loogen F (1988) The natural history of aortic valvular stenosis. Eur Heart J 9:57–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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 87:16–27Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kiraly P, Kapusta L, van Lier H et al (1997) Natural history of congenital aortic valvar stenosis: an echo and Doppler cardiographic study. Cardiol Young 7:188–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mack G, Silberbach M (2000) Aortic and pulmonary stenosis. Pediatr Rev 21:79–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ward C (2000) Clinical significance of the bicuspid aortic valve. Heart 83:81–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bartz PJ, Driscoll DJ, Keane JF et al (2006) Management strategy for very mild aorticvalve stenosis. Pediatr Cardiol 27:259–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Khalid O, Luxenberg DM, Sable C et al (2006) Aortic stenosis: the spectrum of practice. Pediatr Cardiol 27:661–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bengur AR, Snider AR, Meliones JN, Vermilion RP (1991) Doppler evaluation of aortic valve area in children with aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 18:1499–1505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yamazawa H (2010) Accuracy of the Doppler-derived pressure gradient in pediatric patients with aortic valvular stenosis: is the correction for pressure recovery necessary? Hokkaido Igaku Zasshi 85:225–231PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Barker PC, Ensing G, Ludomirsky A, Bradley DJ, Lloyd TR, Rocchini AP (2002) Comparison of simultaneous invasive and noninvasive measurements of pressure gradients in congenital aortic valve stenosis. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 15:1496–1502CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Pediatric Cardiologyİstanbul University Cerrahpaşa Medical FacultyIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Pediatricsİstanbul University Cerrahpaşa Medical Faculty İstanbulIstanbulTurkey
  3. 3.Department of Public Healthİstanbul University Cerrahpaşa Medical FacultyIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations