Management of aortic valve replacement according to the Gradient across symptomatic aortic valve stenosis and its prognostic impact.

Background Treatment strategy for low-gradient (LG) aortic stenosis (AS) remains an unresolved issue. The presence of a low aortic gradient and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) might lead toward the underestimation of aortic stenosis severity and a more conservative management. We sought (a) to describe the nature and timing of intervention according to flow/gradient subgroups in patibents with LG-AS, (2) to determine the factors associated with the decision to intervene, and (c) to describe prognosis. Methods and Results One hundred and ten patients prospectively included in this study underwent a standardized clinical and imaging evaluation at inclusion and at 1-year follow-up. According to aortic flow, gradient and LVEF, patients were divided into 4 groups: LG-normal flow [n = 27], LG-low flow-low LVEF [n = 27], LG-low flow-normal LVEF [n = 16], and high gradient (HG) [n = 40]). 73% of patients underwent AVR 86 +/- 59 days after the initial assessment. The HG subgroup had significantly higher intervention rates (P < .001). In multivariable analysis, four parameters were associated with the AVR: aortic gradient (HR 1.52 [1.10-2.11], P = .012), LVEF (HR 0.58 [0.40-0.85], P = .006), atrial fibrillation (HR 0.43 [0.021-0.87], P = .019), and NT-proBNP (HR 0.92[0.86-0.98), P = .008]. Patients operated earlier had better outcomes than those having a delayed AVR (P = .042). LG-AS patients had worse outcomes than HG-AS patients (P < .001). Conclusion Compared to HG-AS, LG-AS is less likely to benefit from an AVR and had a significantly worse outcome. Further interventional studies are needed to investigate the timing of AVR in these patients.