Options for managing severe aortic stenosis: A case-based review
ABSTRACTThe treatment of calcific aortic stenosis is well established and includes careful monitoring of patients who have no symptoms and surgical aortic valve replacement in the patients who do have symptoms. Patients who cannot undergo open heart surgery can now undergo valve replacement via a minimally invasive transcatheter approach. In this article, we use clinical vignettes to illustrate the management of patients with severe aortic stenosis.
KEY POINTS
- Calcific aortic stenosis is the most common acquired valvular disease, and its prevalence is increasing as the population ages.
- Patients who have symptoms should be referred for aortic valve replacement. Patients who are not candidates for open heart surgery may be eligible for transcatheter aortic valve replacement.
- For high-risk patients with multiple comorbidities, “bridging” therapies such as aortic valvuloplasty are an option.
- In patients with aortic stenosis who present with hemodynamic instability and circulatory collapse, time can be gained with the use of intravenous sodium nitroprusside (in the absence of hypotension) or intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation while more definitive treatment decisions are being made.
CASE 2: SYMPTOMS AND LEFT VENTRICULAR DYSFUNCTION
Ms. B, age 79, has hypertension and hyperlipidemia and now presents to the outpatient department with worsening shortness of breath and chest discomfort. Electrocardiography shows significant left ventricular hypertrophy and abnormal repolarization. Left heart catheterization reveals mild nonobstructive coronary artery disease.
Echocardiography reveals an ejection fraction of 25%, severe left ventricular hypertrophy, and global hypokinesis. The aortic valve leaflets appear heavily calcified, with restricted motion. The peak and mean gradients across the aortic valve are 40 and 28 mm Hg, and the valve area is 0.8 cm2. Right heart catheterization shows a cardiac output of 3.1 L/min.
Does this patient’s aortic stenosis account for her clinical presentation?
Managing patients who have suspected severe aortic stenosis, left ventricular dysfunction, and low aortic valve gradients can be challenging. Although data for surgical intervention are not as robust for these patient subsets as for patients like Mr. A, several case series have suggested that survival in these patients is significantly better with surgery than with medical therapy alone.22–27
Specific factors predict whether patients with ventricular dysfunction and low gradients will benefit from aortic valve replacement. Dobutamine stress echocardiography is helpful in distinguishing true severe aortic stenosis from “pseudostenosis,” in which leaflet motion is restricted due to primary cardiomyopathy and low flow. Distinguishing between true aortic stenosis and pseudostenosis is of paramount value, as surgery is associated with improved long-term outcomes in patients with true aortic stenosis (even though they are at higher surgical risk), whereas those with pseudostenosis will not benefit from surgery.28–31
Infusion of dobutamine increases the flow across the aortic valve (if the left ventricle has contractile reserve; more on this below), and an increasing valve area with increasing doses of dobutamine is consistent with pseudostenosis. In this situation, treatment of the underlying cardiomyopathy is indicated as opposed to replacement of the aortic valve (Figure 2).
Contractile reserve is defined as an increase in stroke volume (> 20%), valvular gradient (> 10 mm Hg), or peak velocity (> 0.6 m/s) with peak dobutamine infusion. The presence of contractile reserve in patients with aortic stenosis identifies a high-risk group that benefits from aortic valve replacement (Figure 2).
Treatment of patients who have inadequate reserve is controversial. In the absence of contractile reserve, an adjunct imaging study such as computed tomography may be of value in detecting calcified valve leaflets, as the presence of calcium is associated with true aortic stenosis. Comorbid conditions should be taken into account as well, given the higher surgical risk in this patient subset, as aortic valve replacement in this already high-risk group of patients might be futile in some cases.
The ACC/AHA guidelines now give dobutamine stress echocardiography a class IIa indication (meaning the weight of the evidence or opinion is in favor of usefulness or efficacy) for determination of contractile reserve and valvular stenosis for patients with an ejection fraction of 30% or less or a mean gradient of 40 mm Hg or less.21
Ms. B underwent dobutamine stress echocardiography. It showed increases in ejection fraction, stroke volume, and transvalvular gradients, indicating that she did have contractile reserve and true severe aortic stenosis. Consequently, she was referred for surgical aortic valve replacement.
CASE 3: MODERATE STENOSIS AND THREE-VESSEL CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE
Mr. C, age 81, has hypertension and hyperlipidemia. He now presents to the emergency department with chest discomfort that began suddenly, awakening him from sleep. His presenting electrocardiogram shows nonspecific changes, and he is diagnosed with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction. He undergoes left heart catheterization, which reveals severe three-vessel coronary artery disease.
Echocardiography reveals an ejection fraction of 55% and aortic stenosis, with an aortic valve area of 1.2 cm2, a peak gradient of 44 mm Hg, and a mean gradient of 28 mm Hg.
How would you manage his aortic stenosis?
Moderate aortic stenosis in a patient who needs surgery for severe triple-vessel coronary artery disease, other valve diseases, or aortic disease raises the question of whether aortic valve replacement should be performed in conjunction with these surgeries. Although these patients would not otherwise qualify for aortic valve replacement, the fact that they will undergo a procedure that will expose them to the risks associated with open heart surgery makes them reasonable candidates. Even if the patient does not need aortic valve replacement right now, aortic stenosis progresses at a predictable rate—the valve area decreases by a mean of 0.1 cm2/year and the gradients increase by 7 mm Hg/year. Therefore, clinical judgment should be exercised so that the patient will not need to undergo open heart surgery again in the near future.
The ACC/AHA guidelines recommend aortic valve replacement for patients with moderate aortic stenosis undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting or surgery on the aorta or other heart valves, giving it a class IIa indication.21 This recommendation is based on several retrospective case series that evaluated survival, the need for reoperation for aortic valve replacement, or both in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting.32–35
No data exist, however, on adding aortic valve replacement to coronary artery bypass grafting in cases of mild aortic stenosis. As a result, it is controversial and carries a class IIb recommendation (meaning that its usefulness or efficacy is less well established). The ACC/AHA guidelines state that aortic valve replacement “may be considered” in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting who have mild aortic stenosis (mean gradient < 30 mm Hg or jet velocity < 3 m/s) when there is evidence, such as moderate or severe valve calcification, that progression may be rapid (level of evidence C: based only on consensus opinion of experts, case studies or standard of care).21
Mr. C, who has moderate aortic stenosis, underwent aortic valve replacement in conjunction with three-vessel bypass grafting.
