Echocardiographic Evaluation of Aortic Stenosis

Chapter

Abstract

Echocardiography is a definitive tool for the assessment of aortic stenosis (AS). Echocardiographic assessment should include morphology of the aortic valve and related structures as well as a functional assessment of aortic stenosis severity. Functional assessment includes peak velocity of the AS jet, mean pressure gradient, and aortic valve area. Accurate assessment and reporting of aortic stenosis require a commitment to technical excellence as well as a sophisticated understanding of the limitations of functional parameters and potential for measurement errors. Echocardiograhers should provide an overall determination of aortic stenosis severity, determine suitability for treatment with transcatheter heart valve techniques, and resolve discrepant measurements whenever possible. Three-dimensional (3D) echo has an increasing role, especially in the transcutaneous heart valve context. Finally, AS needs to be viewed in the context of the function of the heart as a whole taking into account systolic and diastolic function, cardiac remodeling, non-aortic valvular heart disease, and the influence of associated cardiac conditions.

Keywords

Aortic valve Stenosis Echocardiography Transcatheter heart valve 3D echo 

Abbreviations

AF

Atrial fibrillation

AR

Aortic regurgitation

AS

Aortic stenosis

AVA

Aortic valve area

BSA

Body surface area

CW

Continuous wave

EOA

Effective orifice area

LVOT

Left ventricular outflow tract

MR

Mitral regurgitation

PSAS

Pseudosevere aortic stenosis

PW

Pulse wave

3D

Three dimensional

TEE

Transesophageal echo

THV

Transcatheter heart valve

TSAS

Truly severe aortic stenosis

VTI

Velocity-time integral

References

  1. 1.
    Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Chatterjee K, De Leon Jr AC, Faxon DP, Freed MD, et al. 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) developed in collaboration with the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists endorsed by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48(3):e1–148.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gillam L, Otto C. Advanced approaches in echocardiography. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2012.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Piazza N, de Jaegere P, Schultz C, Becker AE, Serruys PW, Anderson RH. Anatomy of the aortic valvar complex and its implications for transcatheter implantation of the aortic valve. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2008;1(1):74–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack M, Miller DC, Moses JW, Svensson LG, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(17):1597–607.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zamorano JL, Badano LP, Bruce C, Chan KL, Goncalves A, Hahn RT, et al. EAE/ASE recommendations for the use of echocardiography in new transcatheter interventions for valvular heart disease. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2011;24(9):937–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Roberts WC, Ko JM. Frequency by decades of unicuspid, bicuspid, and tricuspid aortic valves in adults having isolated aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis, with or without associated aortic regurgitation. Circulation. 2005;111(7):920–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Braverman AC, Guven H, Beardslee MA, Makan M, Kates AM, Moon MR. The bicuspid aortic valve. Curr Probl Cardiol. 2005;30(9):470–522.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baumgartner H, Hung J, Bermejo J, Chambers JB, Evangelista A, Griffin BP, et al. Echocardiographic assessment of valve stenosis: EAE/ASE recommendations for clinical practice. Eur J Echocardiogr. 2009;10(1):1–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Otto Catherine M. Textbook of clinical echocardiography. 4th ed. Elsevier: Saunders; 2009.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Anderson B. Echocardiography: the normal examination and echocardiographic measurements. 2nd ed. Sydney: MGA Graphics; 2007.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Baumgartner H, Hung J, Bermejo J, Chambers JB, Evangelista A, Griffin BP, et al. Echocardiographic assessment of valve stenosis: EAE/ASE recommendations for clinical practice. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2009;22(1):1–23. quiz 101–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Otto CM. Valvular aortic stenosis: disease severity and timing of intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47(11):2141–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chambers J, Rajani R, Hankins M, Cook R. The peak to mean pressure decrease ratio: a new method of assessing aortic stenosis. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2005;18(6):674–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Otto CM, Pearlman AS, Gardner CL, Enomoto DM, Togo T, Tsuboi H, et al. Experimental validation of Doppler echocardiographic measurement of volume flow through the stenotic aortic valve. Circulation. 1988;78(2):435–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Otto CM, Pearlman AS, Comess KA, Reamer RP, Janko CL, Huntsman LL. Determination of the stenotic aortic valve area in adults using Doppler echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1986;7(3):509–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Oh JK, Taliercio CP, Holmes Jr DR, Reeder GS, Bailey KR, Seward JB, et al. Prediction of the severity of aortic stenosis by Doppler aortic valve area determination: prospective Doppler-catheterization correlation in 100 patients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1988;11(6):1227–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zoghbi WA, Farmer KL, Soto JG, Nelson JG, Quinones MA. Accurate noninvasive quantification of stenotic aortic valve area by Doppler echocardiography. Circulation. 1986;73(3):452–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Garcia D, Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG, Sakr F, Durand LG. Assessment of aortic valve stenosis severity: a new index based on the energy loss concept. Circulation. 2000;101(7):765–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Briand M, Dumesnil JG, Kadem L, Tongue AG, Rieu R, Garcia D, et al. Reduced systemic arterial compliance impacts significantly on left ventricular afterload and function in aortic stenosis: implications for diagnosis and treatment. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46(2):291–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Blais C, Burwash IG, Mundigler G, Dumesnil JG, Loho N, Rader F, et al. Projected valve area at normal flow rate improves the assessment of stenosis severity in patients with low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis: the multicenter TOPAS (Truly or Pseudo-Severe Aortic Stenosis) study. Circulation. 2006;113(5):711–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Baumgartner H, Stefenelli T, Niederberger J, Schima H, Maurer G. “Overestimation” of catheter gradients by Doppler ultrasound in patients with aortic stenosis: a predictable manifestation of pressure recovery. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;33(6):1655–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Garcia D, Dumesnil JG, Durand LG, Kadem L, Pibarot P. Discrepancies between catheter and Doppler estimates of valve effective orifice area can be predicted from the pressure recovery phenomenon: practical implications with regard to quantification of aortic stenosis severity. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;41(3):435–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Goland S, Trento A, Iida K, Czer LS, De Robertis M, Naqvi TZ, et al. Assessment of aortic stenosis by three-dimensional echocardiography: an accurate and novel approach. Heart. 2007;93(7):801–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Doddamani S, Grushko MJ, Makaryus AN, Jain VR, Bello R, Friedman MA, et al. Demonstration of left ventricular outflow tract eccentricity by 64-slice multi-detector CT. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;25(2):175–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Poh KK, Levine RA, Solis J, Shen L, Flaherty M, Kang YJ, et al. Assessing aortic valve area in aortic stenosis by continuity equation: a novel approach using real-time three-dimensional echocardiography. Eur Heart J. 2008;29(20):2526–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Burgstahler C, Kunze M, Loffler C, Gawaz MP, Hombach V, Merkle N. Assessment of left ventricular outflow tract geometry in non-stenotic and stenotic aortic valves by cardiovascular magnetic resonance. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2006;8(6):825–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bermejo J, Rojo-Alvarez JL, Antoranz JC, Abel M, Burwash IG, Yotti R, et al. Estimation of the end of ejection in aortic stenosis: an unreported source of error in the invasive assessment of severity. Circulation. 2004;110(9):1114–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Segal J, Lerner DJ, Miller DC, Mitchell RS, Alderman EA, Popp RL. When should Doppler-determined valve area be better than the Gorlin formula? Variation in hydraulic constants in low flow states. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1987;9(6):1294–305.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    deFilippi CR, Willett DL, Brickner ME, Appleton CP, Yancy CW, Eichhorn EJ, et al. Usefulness of dobutamine echocardiography in distinguishing severe from nonsevere valvular aortic stenosis in patients with depressed left ventricular function and low transvalvular gradients. Am J Cardiol. 1995;75(2):191–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hachicha Z, Dumesnil JG, Bogaty P, Pibarot P. Paradoxical low-flow, low-gradient severe aortic stenosis despite preserved ejection fraction is associated with higher afterload and reduced survival. Circulation. 2007;115:2856–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chambers JB, Sprigings DC, Cochrane T, Allen J, Morris R, Black MM, et al. Continuity equation and Gorlin formula compared with directly observed orifice area in native and prosthetic aortic valves. Br Heart J. 1992;67(2):193–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zoghbi WA, Chambers JB, Dumesnil JG, Foster E, Gottdiener JS, Grayburn PA, et al. Recommendations for evaluation of prosthetic valves with echocardiography and doppler ultrasound: a report From the American Society of Echocardiography’s Guidelines and Standards Committee and the Task Force on Prosthetic Valves, developed in conjunction with the American College of Cardiology Cardiovascular Imaging Committee, Cardiac Imaging Committee of the American Heart Association, the European Association of Echocardiography, a registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology, the Japanese Society of Echocardiography and the Canadian Society of Echocardiography, endorsed by the American College of Cardiology Foundation, American Heart Association, European Association of Echocardiography, a registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology, the Japanese Society of Echocardiography, and Canadian Society of Echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2009;22(9):975–1014. quiz 82–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Baumgartner H, Khan S, DeRobertis M, Czer L, Maurer G. Discrepancies between Doppler and catheter gradients in aortic prosthetic valves in vitro. A manifestation of localized gradients and pressure recovery. Circulation. 1990;82(4):1467–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Durst R, Avelar E, McCarty D, Poh KK, Friera LF, Llano MF, et al. Outcome and improvement predictors of mitral regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J Heart Valve Dis. 2011;20(3):272–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kadem L, Dumesnil JG, Rieu R, Durand LG, Garcia D, Pibarot P. Impact of systemic hypertension on the assessment of aortic stenosis. Heart. 2005;91(3):354–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schwammenthal E, Vered Z, Moshkowitz Y, Rabinowitz B, Ziskind Z, Smolinski AK, et al. Dobutamine echocardiography in patients with aortic stenosis and left ventricular dysfunction: predicting outcome as a function of management strategy. Chest. 2001;119(6):1766–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nishimura RA, Grantham JA, Connolly HM, Schaff HV, Higano ST, Holmes Jr DR. Low-output, low-gradient aortic stenosis in patients with depressed left ventricular systolic function: the clinical utility of the dobutamine challenge in the catheterization laboratory. Circulation. 2002;106(7):809–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Monin JL, Quere JP, Monchi M, Petit H, Baleynaud S, Chauvel C, et al. Low-gradient aortic stenosis: operative risk stratification and predictors for long-term outcome: a multicenter study using dobutamine stress hemodynamics. Circulation. 2003;108(3):319–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cueff C, Serfaty JM, Cimadevilla C, Laissy JP, Himbert D, Tubach F, et al. Measurement of aortic valve calcification using multislice computed tomography: correlation with haemodynamic severity of aortic stenosis and clinical implication for patients with low ejection fraction. Heart. 2011;97(9):721–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Marechaux S, Hachicha Z, Bellouin A, Dumesnil JG, Meimoun P, Pasquet A, et al. Usefulness of exercise-stress echocardiography for risk stratification of true asymptomatic patients with aortic valve stenosis. Eur Heart J. 2010;31(11):1390–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Binder RK, Webb JG, Willson AB, Urena M, Hansson NC, Norgaard BL, Pibarot P, Barbanti M, Larose E, Freeman M, Dumont E, Thompson C, Wheeler M, Moss RR, Yang TH, Pasian S, Hague C, Nguyen G, Raju R, Toggweiler S, Min JK, Wood DA, Rodés-Cabau J, Leipsic J. The impact of integration of a multidetector computed tomography annulus area sizing algorithm on outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a prospective, multicenter, controlled trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.04.036, pii: S0735-1097(13)01878-0.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of CardiologySt. Paul’s HospitalVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations