Article

Moderate Aortic Stenosis: What is it and When Should We Intervene?

Abstract

Current guidelines recommend aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis in the presence of symptoms or a left ventricular ejection fraction <50%. However, patients with less than severe aortic stenosis may also experience symptoms and recent literature suggests that the prognosis is not as benign as previously reported. There are no recommendations for patients with moderate aortic stenosis and left ventricular dysfunction, despite the high associated morbidity and mortality. There is also some evidence that these patients may benefit from early aortic valve intervention. It is recognised that aortic stenosis not only affects the valve but also has a complex myocardial response. This review discusses the natural history of moderate aortic stenosis along with the role of multimodality imaging in risk stratification in these patients.

Disclosure: GL is supported by research and program grants by Medtronic and holds research and speaking grants by Edwards Lifesciences. TAT is funded by a British Heart Foundation Intermediate Research Fellowship (FS/19/35/35374), and indirectly supported by the University College London Hospitals and Barts NIHR Biomedical Research Centres. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Received:

Accepted:

Published online:

Citation:Interventional Cardiology Review 2021;16:e09.

Correspondence: Guy Lloyd, Heart Valve Clinic and Echocardiography Laboratory, Barts Heart Centre, St Bartholomew’s Hospital, West Smithfield, London, EC1A 7BE, UK. E: guy.lloyd1@nhs.net

Open access:

This work is open access under the CC-BY-NC 4.0 License which allows users to copy, redistribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes, provided the original work is cited correctly.

The timing of intervention in aortic stenosis (AS) is crucial. It is evident that severe AS is associated with poor survival when left untreated.1 Although current guidelines recommend aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients with symptomatic severe AS or evidence of left ventricular dysfunction (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] <50%), there is growing evidence that this treatment paradigm may lead to intervention after significant cardiac damage has occurred, with resultant poorer outcomes.2–4 Some patients with symptoms of decompensation (breathlessness, chest pain or syncope) only have moderate AS, yet have no other pathologies to which their symptoms can be attributed.

AVR may be considered in patients with moderate AS who are undergoing surgery for other indications.2,3 Current guidelines suggest that patients with moderate AS (defined as peak transaortic velocity of 3.0–3.9 m/s or mean gradient [MG] of 20–39 mmHg) should undergo surveillance yearly, and AVR deferred until the AS becomes severe. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is currently not indicated in moderate disease. However, there are no established recommendations for the treatment of moderate AS with left ventricular systolic dysfunction, despite growing evidence of morbidity and mortality in this population.5 As with most guideline recommendations in valvular heart disease, there is a lack of randomised control trial data to support or refute earlier intervention in these patients.

The Biology of Aortic Stenosis

It is recognised that AS is not only a disease of the valve but also of the myocardium.6 Longstanding AS causes an increase in afterload, which leads to a myocardial remodelling response. This initial adaptive process eventually becomes maladaptive, and determines disease progression, symptoms and outcomes. The left ventricular response to AS is complex and consists of a combination of wall thickening, concentric remodelling and change in cavity size to maintain wall stress. In the later maladaptive stages, capillary rarefaction and cell death occur, as well as focal and diffuse myocardial fibrosis. How and when these processes develop is poorly understood, although sex differences appear particularly important.7 The afterload response conferred by the vasculature is important and varies between individuals. The prevalence of atherosclerosis and hypertension is also high in these patients, which can accelerate arterial stiffness.

AS – conventionally defined in binary terms (moderate or severe) – is better characterised by a number of relatively distinct phenotypes and how these relate to clinical courses/outcomes. Because conventional high gradient does not develop in many cases, pathological changes must be occurring at an earlier point in the disease process in some, if not all individuals. This is supported by the strong signal of symptom limitation at the moderate severity.

The Progression of Aortic Stenosis

The natural history of severe, symptomatic AS has been extensively documented.8–9 However, there is much less information on clinical outcomes in adults with moderate AS and the existing literature is heterogeneous. It is important to differentiate the anatomical progression of stenosis (‘how narrow?’) and the clinical progression with adverse outcome (‘how bad?’).

Anatomical Progression

There is a wide range in the progression rate, and it is unclear why some patients have a rapid disease progression and some do not. Haemodynamic AS progression is classically considered as constant and homogeneous (average increase in peak velocity by 0.3 m/s per year and an increase in MG by 7 mmHg per year) but is highly variable among individuals. As yet, no medical therapies have proven effective in reducing progression of AS or improving clinical outcomes.10

Clinical Progression

Earlier studies based on patient groups identified at cardiac catheterisation suggested a relatively benign prognosis in patients with moderate AS.11,12 Horstkotte et al. demonstrated a time interval between the first manifestation of moderate AS and progression to severe stenosis requiring surgery of 13.4 years.12

Later studies suggest that both clinical outcomes and progression to severe AS occur at a very high rate.13–20 Comparison of outcomes in patients with moderate AS is difficult because of the marked differences between studies (differences in symptom status, definition of stenosis severity and modality used to assess AS, study design, choice of end-points and definition of event-free survival). Nevertheless, moderate AS is associated with a substantial increase in mortality from both cardiac and non-cardiac causes. Furthermore, progression to severe disease can occur much more rapidly than previously expected.

The studies also identify characteristics (e.g. moderate or severe aortic valve calcification and concomitant coronary artery disease) that may put certain patients at risk for more rapid progression of AS.21 Data from the Heart Valve Clinic International Database registry showed that in patients with moderate AS at baseline, independent determinants of cardiovascular mortality were dyslipidaemia and peak velocity. There was also a trend for association between cardiovascular mortality and LVEF.22

Observational data from a large Australian registry sought to determine more definitively the prognostic impact of increasing severity of AS. Echocardiographic findings from 3,315 patients with moderate AS were linked to long-term mortality. The 5-year mortality was 56%, after adjusting for age, sex, left ventricular systolic or diastolic dysfunction and aortic regurgitation. The risk of dying in the longer term was similar to the risk in patients presenting with severe AS at baseline.5 In the population-based study by Livanainen et al., moderate AS was associated with an increased risk of all cause and cardiovascular mortality; however the independent predictive value was lost when left ventricular mass and systolic function were included in the analysis.14 The studies detailing clinical outcomes in patients with moderate AS are presented in Table 1.

It is also important to note that patients with moderate mixed aortic valve disease (AS and regurgitation) are at risk for all-cause mortality, and that AVR significantly reduced this risk, independent for aortic valve area (AVA), symptom status and after controlling for confounding variables.23

Aortic Stenosis and Left Ventricular Dysfunction

Left ventricular dysfunction has been reported in a quarter of patients with AS.24 The natural progression of AS comprises different phenotypic presentations involving patients who will develop left ventricular dysfunction and symptoms early, much before reaching the limit definition of severe AS. Both AS severity and left ventricular dysfunction are variables with definitions of ‘severe’ and ‘abnormal’ based on observational clinical studies.25,26 However, there is some evidence to suggest that patients with conventionally defined moderate AS and heart failure may benefit from AVR.27–29

The study by van Gils et al. showed that 61% of patients with moderate AS and left ventricular systolic dysfunction died, underwent AVR or were hospitalised for heart failure, at 4-year follow-up with male sex, New york Heart Association Class III or IV, and higher peak aortic velocities independently predicting events.26 A retrospective analysis from the Duke Echocardiographic database reported a mortality benefit associated with AVR (with or without concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting) for moderate AS and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD), compared with medical management.28 These findings differ from those of Fougeres et al., who found that in patients with pseudo-severe (moderate) AS, there was no difference in the survival rate compared to controls with LVSD and no valve disease.29

Data from Hayward et al. identified 169 patients with moderate AS and left ventricular impairment (AVA 1–1.5 cm2 and LVEF <50%) and sought to identify determinants of outcomes. The primary endpoint was all cause mortality with a median follow-up period of 22.9 months. Patients with abnormal global longitudinal strain (GLS) had significantly worse survival and the only independent predictor of outcome was GLS.30 A recently published study by Ito et al. showed that in patients with moderate AS, those with decreased LVEF and/or indexed stroke volume were at increased risk of mortality.31

Evidence for Benefit from Earlier Intervention

In patients with symptomatic AS (AVA <1 cm2) who had a low gradient and normal flow (NFLG), intervention was associated with reduced cardiac-related mortality, as opposed to conservative treatment.32 Long-term data are equivocal. These findings are similar to another study that demonstrated a similar long-term mortality when comparing NFLG patients with patients with moderate AS.33 In contrast, another study found a similar survival in patients undergoing early AVR compared with watchful waiting .34

Moon et al. reported that among 255 patients with moderate AS and concomitant LVSD, 47.5% of patients died and 18.8% received AVR during a median of 1.8 years of follow-up. The incidence of all cause death was significantly lower in the early AVR group compared with the medical treatment group. The LVEF also improved to >50% in 59.5% of the early AVR group. Limitations include the single-centre nature and small patient numbers.35

The investigators of the TAVR-UNLOAD trial aim to provide further insight into moderate AS with left ventricular dysfunction. Three hundred patients will be randomised into two arms: TAVR combined with optimised heart failure therapy versus optimal heart failure therapy alone. The primary endpoint will be a composite of all-cause death, disabling stroke, heart failure hospitalisations, symptomatic aortic valve disease or non-disabling stroke.36

Hypertension and concurrent coronary artery disease are common in patients with AS. Hypertension may also be a risk factor for AS and adds to the total pressure load on the left ventricle. Medical therapy for hypertension follows standard guidelines, starting at a low dose and titrating upwards as needed to achieve blood pressure control. All patients should be screened and treated for hypercholesterolaemia.3

Studies of Clinical Outcomes in Moderate Aortic Stenosis

Article image

The current data have important clinical implications. Whether they support AVR in patients with moderate AS before progression to severe is open to debate. However, it is important to question the conventional guidelines of expectantly managing these patients, suggesting that they require much closer follow-up and more aggressive management than the present guidelines indicate.

The Role of Multi-modality Imaging

Echocardiography

Echocardiographic evaluation starts with a visual assessment of the structure, calcification and mobility of the valve. AS severity is conventionally graded by peak velocity, MG and AVA (Figure 1). The classification of AS severity is not always straightforward, and echocardiographic findings are discordant in one in three patients.37 A distinction needs to be made between those with low flow (<35 ml/m2), and those with normal flow, in whom measurement inaccuracy or the discordance between a MG of 40 mmHg and a valve area of 1.0 cm2 are the more likely explanations. Additional investigations may be required. In patients with a reduced LVEF, low gradient and low AVA, dobutamine stress echocardiography may help in differentiating patients with true severe AS from pseudo-severe (moderate) AS.38

A decrease in flow may be because of an increase in global left ventricular afterload not only as a result of the valvular stenosis but also from a decrease in systemic arterial compliance and/or increased vascular resistance.39 Assessment of the global left ventricular haemodynamic load by measuring the valvuloarterial impedance (Zva) has been shown to be superior to the standard measures of AS severity in predicting left ventricular dysfunction and clinical outcomes.40,41 Hachicha et al. have also demonstrated that Zva is a strong independent predictor of clinical outcome in patients with at least moderate AS.41 The left ventricle faces a double load; valvular and arterial, particularly in hypertension, which frequently co-exists in patients with AS. A high Zva may explain why a patient with moderate AS is symptomatic. It is currently unclear whether these patients should undergo aortic valve intervention in the presence of symptoms, even after aggressive blood pressure control.

Transthoracic Echocardiogram of Patient With Moderate Aortic Stenosis

Article image

Assessment of the Left Ventricle

There is evidence to suggest that adaptive remodelling becomes maladaptive with increasing left ventricular hypertrophy and consequent myocardial fibrosis in patients with AS. Inappropriately high left ventricular mass (iLVM) is associated with increased mortality, AVR or hospital admission.42 iLVM is also common in asymptomatic mild-to-moderate AS and is associated with reduced left ventricular contractility.43

Left ventricular impairment is a strong adverse prognostic marker and LVEF <50% even in asymptomatic patients is a Class I indication for AVR. However, LVEF may remain normal until later in the course of the disease. Systolic long axis function may be impaired, even in the presence of a normal ejection fraction, in patients with AS (Figure 1).44

Asymptomatic patients with moderate AS have subclinical impaired systolic left ventricular function as measured by peak systolic tissue velocity (S’) and strain, compared to controls (S’ 4.1 ± 1.0 versus 4.8 ± 1.1 cm/s; p<0.01 and strain −16.6 ± 2.7 versus −17.9± 2%; p<0.05). Septal E’ (early diastolic mitral annular velocity) was decreased and septal E/E’ was increased in the AS group compared with the controls.45 Patients with AS may also develop symptoms because of progressive diastolic dysfunction. A reduction in early diastolic mitral annular velocity (E’) and an increase in E/E’ were observed in patients with mild to moderate asymptomatic AS, and related to the severity of AS. These measures have been reported to correlate with left ventricular filling pressures and may be a useful predictor of developing symptoms.46 These findings demonstrate that the damage to the left ventricular myocardium is an on-going process, which starts long before the need for AVR according to the current guidelines.

Impaired left ventricular GLS (LVGLS), as a potential surrogate of myocardial fibrosis, has been shown to be an independent predictor of mortality and adverse outcomes in both symptomatic and asymptomatic severe AS patients, suggesting that LVGLS is a better value for risk stratification and management of AS, than LVEF.47,48

It has been shown that clinical outcomes of patients with moderate AS are poor, highlighting the importance of detecting even mild degrees of left ventricular dysfunction before the AS becomes severe. Zhu et al. retrospectively analysed data from 287 patients with moderate AS (aortic valve peak velocity [AVVmax] 3.2 ± 0.5 m/s, MG 24.5 ± 7.4, AVA 1.26 ± 0.14 cm2 and LVEF 62 ± 6%). They found that mortality was significantly higher in patients with GLS ≥15.2% compared with GLS ≤15.2%. LVGLS was independently associated with survival even after adjusting for age, sex, coronary artery disease, LVEF, MG and symptomatic status.49 Increased afterload could possibly be already overwhelming even if AS is only moderate among patients with impaired GLS. Patients with impaired GLS had larger left ventricular mass index with concentric left ventricular hypertrophy and lower E velocities compared to those with preserved GLS.

Moderate AS based on current echocardiographic data may be associated with reduced survival, which in part may be related to comorbid clinical factors and co-existent cardiac abnormalities. Hence, the concept of staging AS and its relationship to clinical outcomes (rather than merely classifying the severity of the valve lesion based on echo criteria) may aid in the risk stratification of patients with AS. Genereux et al. characterised patients with symptomatic severe AS undergoing AVR into five stages: stage 0, no left ventricular damage; stage 1, left ventricular damage; stage 2, left atrial enlargement and mitral valve damage; stage 3, pulmonary hypertension and tricuspid damage; stage 4, right ventricular dysfunction has been proposed to aid the decision to potentially intervene in a more timely fashion. A main focus of these staging algorithms has been the changes that occur in the myocardium in AS and the pattern of left ventricular remodelling.50 Incorporation of LVGLS into the staging classification improves the prognostic value by identifying patients with more advanced cardiac damage.51

Including GLS (as a surrogate of myocardial fibrosis) in the echocardiographic evaluation of patients with AS, irrespective of its grade, may aid in the risk stratification of these patients. Early pressure unloading of the left ventricular can result in a more significant regression of diffuse fibrosis. The limitations of the current evidence are its retrospective nature and single centre study design. There is a need for a randomised clinical trial to determine whether patients with moderate AS and impaired GLS benefit from earlier intervention.

Exercise Echocardiography

Exercise stress echocardiography allows not just the assessment of functional capacity and haemodynamic changes, but also the measurement of trans-valvular gradient under higher flow conditions, measurement of left ventricular contractile function and estimation of pulmonary artery systolic pressures. Little is known about how the ventricle and vasculature respond to less than severe AS and whether this could lead to symptoms in susceptible individuals. More information may be revealed about the ventricle’s adaptation/maladaptation when placed under even mild stress compared to being at rest.

Moderate AS is considered a pre-symptomatic stage although there is a strong suggestion that a proportion of patients are already symptomatic; up to 60% exhibited breathlessness on exertion in one study,52 and that these symptoms on exertion are more closely linked to outcome than resting echo based severity parameters. Changes in exercise performance in patients with moderate AS are not well understood although there is evidence to support a reduction in exercise time of around 5% over 2.5-year follow-up.53 A small study of 38 apparently asymptomatic patients with moderate-to-severe AS revealed symptoms were associated with a lower peak VO2 on cardiopulmonary exercise testing, and lower peak stroke index during exercise. The limitation of the current evidence is that the cohorts either contain patients with both moderate and severe AS or have incomplete exercise data. Furthermore, the exercise data are confined to relatively crude treadmill parameters such as exercise time, but they do not establish the pathogenesis of the exercise limitation.

An abnormal left ventricular response to exercise (manifest by a lack of increment or decrease in LVEF on exercise) is associated with an increased likelihood of developing symptoms on exercise and lower survival free of cardiac events than those with an appropriate increase in LVEF on exercise. However, left ventricular longitudinal strain is a more powerful parameter than LVEF to predict the occurrence of symptoms, exercise tolerance and cardiac events. Huded et al., in a study of 504 asymptomatic patients with severe AS, showed that age and sex predicted metabolic equivalents (HR 1.16), LVGLS and valvuloarterial impedance, offered incremental prognostic value.54 However, at present, no clinically applicable cut offs for contractile reserve using strain in AS have been validated.

Exercise stress echocardiography using tissue Doppler imaging also provides prognostic information, in mild to moderate AS. A significant increase in the E/E’ ratio during exercise predicted adverse cardiac events, beyond exercise echocardiography or exercise testing alone.55 This highlights that the increased afterload alters the ventricular filling dynamics as well as the relaxing properties of the left ventricle in AS patients. The data demonstrates that objective assessment of the myocardium and valve behaviour under stress conditions, may aid in the decision making regarding aortic valve intervention, before irreversible myocardial changes occur.

Cardiopulmonary exercise testing provides an additional objective measure of exercise tolerance and has been shown to be feasible and reproducible in AS and able to identify a greater proportion of individuals with exercise intolerance than conventional parameters that are recommended in the current guidelines (symptoms or fall in blood pressure).56–58 Previous studies have shown that a significant proportion of patients with apparently asymptomatic moderate-to-severe AS exhibit a peak VO2 <84% predicted.58,59 A reduced peak VO2 was associated with a lower event-free survival compared to a normal peak VO2. No exercise stress echocardiography parameters however, were associated with peak VO2, nor predicted event free survival.59 Whether patients with purely moderate AS exhibit exercise limitation defined by a reduced VO2 peak is yet to be established.

Cardiac CT for Aortic Valve Assessment

Article image

Cardiac CT and PET

Quantification of aortic valve calcium (AVC) has been shown in multicentre studies to be reproducible and offers prognostic value above and beyond echocardiographic indices of AS severity (Figure 2).60,61 AVC load can be correlated with haemodynamic indicators of the severity of AS, as demonstrated by Boulif et al. in a study of 266 patients with moderate-severe AS (defined by an effective orifice area of <1.5 cm2), thereby potentially providing a valuable surrogate marker of AS severity.62 AVC load may predict outcome, including in asymptomatic patients, independently of other markers that may be detected on echocardiography, such as AVA and EF. The possible distortion of the former by reduction of the latter, whereby reduced LVEF may impact on the AV gradient and thereby result in functionally low AVA, renders the use of independent markers of AS severity all the more crucial in order to plan interventions of the most appropriate means and timing.63–65 The inclusion of CT-AVC in guidelines for the assessment of AS severity provides the optimal framework with which to apply this marker to clinical practice.2

A further interesting application of CT in AS is the use of hybrid PET-CT imaging to track both valvular inflammation and calcification with 18F-flurodeoxyglucose and 18F-fluoride-PET-CT. Earlier studies have suggested that 18F-NaF activity predicts the rate of future disease progression as measured by CT-AVC and echocardiography and prospective studies are also underway to assess whether it can improve prediction of risk and response to therapy.65,66

Cardiac MRI

The importance of the transition from physiological adaptation to pathophysiological maladaptation in the myocardial remodelling response in AS was highlighted over 40 years ago in pivotal work by studying myocyte hypertrophy and fibrosis on myocardial histology. Work by Schwarz and others demonstrated proportional myocyte hypertrophy and diffuse interstitial fibrosis, as well as partly disease specific patterns of fibrosis, described as compact or ‘focal’, perimyseal, perivascular, plexiform or patchy.67 In AS, interfibre and perivascular fibrosis increase disproportionally.67 Later work also demonstrated gradients of fibrosis and capillary rarefaction from the subendocardium than in the subepicardium.68,69 Fast forward, we can now identify many of these changes non-invasively by cardiac MRI (CMR) using not only the superior accuracy of CMR to quantify left and right ventricular size, hypertrophy and function (Figure 3) but also quantifying both focal scar (with late gadolinium enhancement [LGE] imaging) and diffuse fibrosis (with T1 mapping that allows the quantification of the extracellular volume fraction (ECV%). Both techniques have been validated against myocardial fibrosis on histology highlighting the previously described complex pattern of subendocardial microscars and mid-myocardial diffuse fibrosis.70–72 Importantly, focal scar can already be detected in moderate AS. Everett et al. showed both the amount of LGE and elevation of ECV% increases in moderate AS prior to left ventricular impairment or symptom onset with new scar occurring both at the sites of existing LGE and, in a quarter of patients, at remote sites with the development of new areas of non-infarct LGE.73 Both LGE and ECV% are independent predictors of outcomes after AVR, but importantly LGE is irreversible, whereas diffuse fibrosis quantified by ECV% regresses after AVR.74–77

Cardiac MRI in Aortic Stenosis

Article image

Whether myocardial scar can be used to guide early AVR in asymptomatic severe AS, is currently under investigation in the EVOLVED study, which is the first multicentre randomised controlled trial to compare early AVR to routine care in asymptomatic severe AS guided by the presence of focal scar on LGE imaging.78 If this study provides a role of CMR in guiding timing of intervention, then the next conceivably are of CMR-guided early intervention will be moderate AS with evidence of myocardial decompensation (Figure 4). The increased use of CMR has also highlighted dual pathology AS and transthyretin-type cardiac amyloidosis, which occurs in one in eight elderly patients referred for TAVR.78,79 Although TAVR is beneficial in AS-amyloidosis, diagnosis is still important because new amyloid-directed pharmacotherapies are now available and should be considered. Beyond fibrosis and infiltration, CMR can also detect myocardial perfusion reserve and oedema, with studies on-going to establish the importance of microvascular perfusion and low grade of inflammation in the pathophysiological remodelling of AS.

Imaging Parameters in Aortic Stenosis

Article image

Just a Question of Classification?

The ultimate question is whether we need to re-classify AS bearing in mind the importance of the myocardial response and its impact on outcome, and the improved outcomes with better surgical and trans-catheter technology (that lower the upfront risk and change the balance of risk-versus-benefit). While the label ‘severe’ signals the need for intervention, we should aim to describe the valvular insult to the myocardium and upstream cardiac structures as significant or non-significant and then assess the resultant response.

How classification can have a counterproductive effect can be seen by the strict interpretation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 2017 guidelines that reclassified low-gradient severe AS to moderate AS unless presenting with low flow status (stroke volume index ≤35 ml/m2) and high calcium scores (emphasising on mean pressure gradient and an integrated approach). Chan et al. demonstrated that strict adherence to 2017 ESC guidelines for valvular heart disease reclassified 45% of their severe asymptomatic severe AS cohort to moderate (PRIMID-AS) and that both the severe and reclassified groups had a higher risk compared with moderate AS with the reclassified group demonstrating an intermediate risk.80 This work from the PRIMID-AS investigators demonstrates that moderate AS clearly is in grey area where exercise testing, multimodality imaging, and possibly lower AS severity cut-offs may personalise the treatment of AS and may improve risk stratification.

Conclusion

Moderate AS carries a high morbidity and mortality and there is evidence to suggest that these patients may benefit from earlier intervention. The current evidence highlights the importance of careful surveillance of these patients. However, small patient numbers and the retrospective study nature limit much of the evidence. Echocardiography is pivotal in guiding management, although alternative imaging modalities such as CT, CMR and PET are increasingly being used to assess disease activity and progression. A new era of randomised clinical trials is required to evaluate the hypothesis that imaging-driven care in earlier stage aortic valve disease with upstream intervention would result in better long-term clinical outcomes.

Clinical Perspective

  • Aortic stenosis is the most common left-sided valve lesion requiring intervention and carries a substantial morbidity and mortality burden.
  • Clear guidelines exist for the management of patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis.
  • However, patients with moderate aortic stenosis may also experience symptoms, to which no other cause can be attributed to other than the valve.
  • It is well recognised that aortic stenosis is not only a disease of the valve, but also of the myocardium, and that a significant proportion of patients with moderate aortic stenosis will also have left ventricular dysfunction.

References

  1. Bohbot Y, Rusinaru D, Delpierre Q, et al. Risk stratification of severe aortic stenosis with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction using peak aortic jet velocity: an outcome study. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2017;10:e006760.
    Crossref | PubMed
  2. Baumgartner H, Falk V, Bax JJ, et al. 2017 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J. 2017;38:2739-2791.
    Crossref | PubMed
  3. Otto CM, Nishimura RA, Bonow RO, et al. 2020 ACC/AHA guideline on the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/ American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2021;77:e25–e197.
    Crossref | PubMed
  4. Musa TA, Treibel TA, Vassilliou VS, et al. Myocardial scar and mortality in severe aortic stenosis. Circulation 2018;138:1935–47
    Crossref | PubMed
  5. Strange G, Stewart S, Celermager D, et al. Poor long term survival in patients with moderate aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2019 74:1851–63.
    Crossref | PubMed
  6. Dweck MR, Boon NA, Newby DE, et al. Calcific aortic stenosis: a disease of the valve and myocardium. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;60:1854–63.
    Crossref | PubMed
  7. Treibel TA, Kozor R, Fontana M, et al. Sex dimorphism in the myocardial response to aortic stenosis. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2018;11:962–73
    Crossref | PubMed
  8. Frank S, Johnson A, Ross J Jr. Natural history of valvular aortic stenosis. Br Heart J 1973;35:1–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  9. Chizner MA, Pearle DL, deLeon AC Jr. The natural history of aortic stenosis in adults. Am Heart J 1980;99:419–24
    Crossref | PubMed
  10. Rossebo AB, Pederson TR, Boman K, et al. Intensive lipid lowering with simvastatin and ezetimibe in aortic stenosis. N Engl J Med 2008;359:1343–56.
    Crossref | PubMed
  11. Turina J, Hess O, Sepulcri F, Krayenbuehl HP. Spontaneous course of aortic valve disease. Eur Heart J 1987;8:471–83.
    Crossref | PubMed
  12. Horstkotte D, Loogen F. The natural history of aortic valve stenosis. Eur Heart J 1988;9:57–64.
    Crossref | PubMed
  13. Kennedy KD, Nishimura RA, Holmes Jr DR, Bailey KR. Natural history of moderate aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 1991;17:213–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  14. Livanainen AM, Lindroos M, Tilvis J, et al. Natural history of aortic stenosis of varying severity in the elderly. Am J Cardiol 1996;78:97–101.
    Crossref | PubMed
  15. Otto CM, Burwash IG, Legget BI, et al. Prospective study of asymptomatic valvular aortic stenosis: clinical, echocardiographic and exercise predictors of outcome. Circulation 1997;95:2262–70.
    Crossref | PubMed
  16. Rosenhek R, Klaar U, Schemper M, et al. Mild and moderate aortic stenosis: Natural history and risk stratification by echocardiography. Eur Heart J 2004;25:199–205.
    Crossref | PubMed
  17. Kearney LG, Ord BF, Buxton BF, et al. Progression of aortic stenosis in the elderly patients over long term follow up. Int J Cardiol 2012;167:1226–31.
    Crossref | PubMed
  18. Mehrotra P, Jansen K, Tan TC, et al. prognosis of patients with isolated severe aortic stenosis: are outcomes similar for all patients with an aortic valve area less than 1.0cm2. Heart 2018;104:222–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  19. Minners J, Jander N, Gerdts E, et al. Outcome in 1763 asymptomatic patients with mild or moderate calcific aortic stenosis followed prospectively with annual echocardiography. Eur Heart J 2013;34 (Suppl 1):1815.
    Crossref
  20. Yechoor P, Blaustein AS, Bakeen FG, et al. The natural history of moderate aortic stenosis in a veteran population. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2013;145:1550–3.
    Crossref | PubMed
  21. Delesalle G, Bohbot Y, Rusinaru D, et al. Characteristics and prognosis of patients with moderate aortic stenosis and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. J Am Heart Assoc 2019;8:e011036.
    Crossref | PubMed
  22. Lancellotti P, Magne J, Dulgheru R, et al. Outcomes of patients with asymptomatic aortic stenosis followed up in heart valve clinics. JAMA Cardiol 2018;3:1060–8
    Crossref | PubMed
  23. Isaza N, Desai MY, Kapadia SR, et al. Long-term outcomes in patients with mixed aortic valve disease and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. J Am Heart Assoc 2020;9:e014591.
    Crossref | PubMed
  24. Osnabrugge RL, Mylotte D, Head SJ, et al. Aortic stenosis is the elderly: disease prevalence and number of candidates for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis and modeling study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013 62:1002–12.
    Crossref | PubMed
  25. Otto CM. Aortic stenosis: treat the patient not the numbers. Heart 2018;104:190–1.
    Crossref | PubMed
  26. Pislaru SV, Pellikka PA. Continuum of disease versus the fascination with numbers: an ongoing struggle. Heart 2018;104:188–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  27. Van Gils L, Clavel MA, Vollema M, et al. Prognostic implications of moderate aortic stenosis in patients with left ventricular systolic function. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;69:2383–92.
    Crossref | PubMed
  28. Samad Z, Vora AN, Dunning A, et al. Aortic valve surgery and survival in patients with moderate or severe aortic stenosis and left ventricular dysfunction. Eur Heart J 2016;37:2276–86.
    Crossref | PubMed
  29. Fougeres E, Tribouilloy C, Monchi M, et al. Outcomes of pseudo-severe aortic stenosis under conservative treatment. Eur Heart J 2012;33:2426–33.
    Crossref | PubMed
  30. Hayward C, Thornton G, Asher A, et al. Determinants of outcome in patients with left ventricular impairment and moderate aortic stenosis. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2020;13:1449–50.
    Crossref | PubMed
  31. Ito S, Miranda WR, Nkomo VT, et al. Prognostic risk stratification of patients with moderate to severe aortic stenosis. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2021;34:248–56.
    Crossref | PubMed
  32. Zusman O, Pressman G, Banai S, et al. Intervention versus observation in symptomatic patients with normal flow low gradient severe aortic stenosis. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2018;11:1225–32.
    Crossref | PubMed
  33. Jander N, Minners J, Holme I et al. Outcome of patients with low-gradient “severe” aortic stenosis and preserved ejection fraction. Circulation 2011;123;887–95.
    Crossref | PubMed
  34. Kang DH, Jang JY, Park SJ, et al. Watchful observation versus early aortic valve replacement for symptomatic patients with normal flow, low-gradient severe aortic stenosis. Heart 2015;101:1375–81.
    Crossref | PubMed
  35. Moon I, Kim M, Choi JW, et al. Early surgery versus watchful waiting in patients with moderate aortic stenosis and left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Korean Circ J 2020;50:791–800.
    Crossref | PubMed
  36. Spitzer E, Van Miegham NM, Pibarot P, et al. Rationale and design of the Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement to Unload the Left ventricle in patients with Advanced heart failure (TAVR UNLOAD) trial. Am Heart J 2016;182:80–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  37. Minners J, Allgeier M, Gohlke-Barewolf C, et al. Inconsistencies of echocardiographic criteria for the grading of aortic valve stenosis. Eur Heart J 2008;29:1043–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  38. Annabi MS, Touboul A, Dahou A, et al. Dobutamine stress echocardiography for management of low flow low gradient aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018;71:475–85.
    Crossref | PubMed
  39. Pibarot P, Dumesnil J. Assessment of aortic stenosis severity: check the valve but don’t forget the arteries! Heart 2007;93:780–2.
    Crossref | PubMed
  40. Lancellotti P, Donal E, Magne J, et al. Risk stratification in asymptomatic moderate to severe aortic stenosis: the importance of the valvular, arterial and ventricular interplay. Heart 2010;96:134–71.
    Crossref | PubMed
  41. Hachicha Z, Dumesnil JG, Pibarot P. Usefulness of the valvuloarterial impedance to predict adverse outcome in asymptomatic aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;54:1003–11.
    Crossref | PubMed
  42. Cioffi G, Faggiano P, Vizzardi E, et al. Prognostic effect of inappropriately high left ventricular mass in asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis. Heart 2011;97:301–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  43. Cioffi G, de Simone G, Gramariuc D, et al. Inappropriately high left ventricular mass in asymptomatic mild-moderate aortic stenosis. J Hypertens 2012;30:421–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  44. Stewart RA, Kerr AJ, Whalley GA, et al. Left ventricular systolic and diastolic function assessed by tissue Doppler imaging and outcome in asymptomatic aortic stenosis. Eur Heart J 2010;31:2216–22.
    Crossref | PubMed
  45. Steine K, Rossebo AB, Stugaard M, et al. Left ventricular systolic and diastolic function in asymptomatic patients with moderate aortic stenosis. Am J Cardiol 2008;102:897–901.
    Crossref | PubMed
  46. Jassal DS, Tam JW, Dumesnil JG, et al. Clinical usefulness of tissue Doppler imaging in patients with mild to moderate aortic stenosis: A substudy of the aortic stenosis progression observation measuring effects of rosuvastatin study. J Am Soc Echocardiograph 2008;21:1023–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  47. Delgado V, Tops LF, van Bommel RJ, et al. Strain analysis in patients with severe aortic stenosis and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction undergoing surgical valve replacement. Eur Heart J 2009;30:3037–47.
    Crossref | PubMed
  48. Magne J, Cosyns B, Popescu BA, et al. Distribution and prognostic significance of left ventricular global longitudinal strain in asymptomatic significant aortic stenosis: An individual participant meta-analysis. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2019;12:93–5.
    Crossref | PubMed
  49. Zhu D, Ito S, Miranda WA, et al. Left ventricular global longitudinal strain is associated with long term outcomes in moderate aortic stenosis. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2020;13:e009958.
    Crossref | PubMed
  50. Genereux P, Pibarot P, Redfors B, et al. Staging classification of aortic stenosis based on the extent of cardiac damage. Eur Heart J 2017;38:3351–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  51. Vollema EM, Amanullah MR, Prihadi EA, et al. Incremental value of left ventricular global longitudinal strain in a newly proposed staging classification based on cardiac damage in patients with severe aortic stenosis. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2020;21:1248–58.
    Crossref | PubMed
  52. Otto CM, Burwash IG, Legget ME, et al. Prospective study of asymptomatic valvular aortic stenosis. Clinical, echocardiographic and exercise predictors of outcome. Circulation 1997;95:2262–70.
    Crossref | PubMed
  53. Rajani R, Rimington H, Chambers JB. Treadmill exercise in apparently asymptomatic patients with moderate or severe aortic stenosis: Relationship between cardiac index and revealed symptoms. Heart 2010 96:689–95.
    Crossref | PubMed
  54. Huded CP, Masri A, Kusunose K, et al. Outcomes in asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis with preserved ejection fraction undergoing rest and treadmill stress echocardiography. J Am Heart Assoc 2018;7:e007880.
    Crossref | PubMed
  55. Sonaglioni A, Lombardo M, Baravelli M, et al. Exercise stress echocardiography with tissue Doppler imaging in risk stratification of mild to moderate aortic stenosis. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 31:1519–27
    Crossref | PubMed
  56. Van Le D, Jensen GVH, Carstensen S, et al. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing in patients with asymptomatic or equivocal symptomatic aortic stenosis: feasibility, reproducibility, safety and information obtained on exercise physiology. Cardiology 2016;133:147–56.
    Crossref | PubMed
  57. Levy F, Fayad N, Jeu Antoine, et al. The value of cardiopulmonary exercise testing in patients with apparently asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis: a pilot study. Arch Cardiovasc Dis 2014;107:519–28.
    Crossref | PubMed
  58. van Zalen J, Badiani S, Hart L, et al. The importance of contractile reserve in predicting exercise tolerance in patients with severe aortic stenosis. Echo Res Pract 2019;6:43–52.
    Crossref | PubMed
  59. Domanski O, Richardson M, Coisne A, et al. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing is a better outcome predictor than exercise echocardiography in asymptomatic aortic stenosis. Int J Cardiol 2017;227:908–14.
    Crossref | PubMed
  60. Pawade T, Clavel MA, Tribouilloy C. Computed tomography aortic valve calcium scoring in patients with aortic stenosis. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2018;11:e007146.
    Crossref | PubMed
  61. Agatston AS, Janowitz WR, Hildner FJ, et al. Quantification of coronary artery calcium using ultrafast computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 1990;15:827–32.
    Crossref | PubMed
  62. Boulif J, Gerber B, Slimani A, et al. Assessment of aortic valve calcium load by multidetector computed tomography. Anatomical validation, impact of scanner settings and incremental diagnostic value. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2017;11:360–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  63. Nishimura RA, Grantham JA, Connolly HM, et al. Low-output, low gradient aortic stenosis in patients with depressed left ventricular systolic function: the clinical utility of the dobutamine challenge in the catheterisation laboratory. Circulation 2002;106:809–13.
    Crossref | PubMed
  64. Messika- Zeitoun D, Aubry MC, Detaint D, et al. Evaluation and clinical implications of aortic valve calcification measured by electron-beam computed tomography. Circulation 2004;110:356–62.
    Crossref | PubMed
  65. Dweck MR, Jenkins WS, Vesey AT, et al. 18F-sodium fluoride uptake is a marker of active calcification and disease progression in patients with aortic stenosis. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2014;7:371–78.
    Crossref | PubMed
  66. Jenkins WS, Vesey AT, Shah AS, et al. Valvular (18) F-fluoride and (18) F-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake predicts disease progression and clinical outcome in patients with severe aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015;66:1200–1.
    Crossref | PubMed
  67. Anderson KR, Sutton MG, Lie JT. Histopathological types of cardiac fibrosis in myocardial disease. J Pathol 1979:128:79–85.
    Crossref | PubMed
  68. Rakusan K, Flanagan MF, Geva T, et al. Morphometry of human coronary capillaries during normal growth and the effect of age in left ventricular pressure-overloaded hypertrophy. Circulation 1992;86:38–46.
    Crossref | PubMed
  69. Cheitlin MD, Robinowitz M, MaAllister H, et al. The distribution of fibrosis in the left ventricle in congenital aortic stenosis and coarctation of the aorta. Circulation 1980;62:823–30.
    Crossref | PubMed
  70. Azevedo CF, Nigri M, Higuchi ML, et al. Prognostic significance of myocardial fibrosis quantification by histopathology and magnetic resonance imaging in patients with severe aortic valve disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;56:278–87.
    Crossref | PubMed
  71. Flett AS, Hayward MP, Ashworth MT, et al. Equilibrium contrast cardiovascular magnetic resonance for the measurement of diffuse myocardial fibrosis: preliminary validation in humans. Circulation 2010;122:138–44.
    Crossref | PubMed
  72. Treibel TA, Lopez B, Gonzalez A, et al. Reappraising myocardial fibrosis in severe aortic stenosis: an invasive and non-invasive study in 133 patients. Eur Heart J 2018: 39:699–709.
    Crossref | PubMed
  73. Everett RJ, Tastet L, Clavel MA, et al. Progression of hypertrophy and myocardial fibrosis in aortic stenosis: A multicentre cardiac magnetic resonance study. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2018;11:e007451.
    Crossref | PubMed
  74. Musa TA, Treibel TA, Vassiliou VS, et al. Myocardial scar and mortality in severe aortic stenosis. Circulation 2018;138:1935–47.
    Crossref | PubMed
  75. Everett RJ, Treibel TA, Fukui M, et al. Extracellular myocardial volume in patients with aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2020;75:304–16.
    Crossref | PubMed
  76. Treibel TA, Kozor R, Schofield R, et al. Reverse myocardial remodeling following valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018;71:860–71.
    Crossref | PubMed
  77. Bing R, Everett RJ, Tuck C, et al. Rationale and design of the randomised, controlled early valve replacement guided by biomarkers of left ventricular decompensation in asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis (EVOLVED) trial. Am Heart J 2019;212:91–100.
    Crossref | PubMed
  78. Cavalcante JL, Rijal S, Abdelkarim I, et al. Cardiac amyloidosis is prevalent in older patients with aortic stenosis and carries worse prognosis. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2017;19:98
    Crossref | PubMed
  79. Nitsche C, Scully PR, Patel KR, et al. Prevalence and outcomes of concomitant aortic stenosis and cardiac amyloidosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2021;77:128–39.
    Crossref | PubMed
  80. Chan DCS, Singh A, Greenwood JP, et al. Effect of the 2017 European guidelines on reclassification of severe aortic stenosis and its influence on management decisions for initially asymptomatic aortic stenosis. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2020;13:e011763.
    Crossref | PubMed