PubMed · 13705784
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
C T GITSIOS, D J ESCHER, N PERNA, G ROBINSON, J HALPERIN. 1961. Functional aortic stenosis.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/13705784/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Low-flow states are associated with adverse outcomes in aortic stenosis (AS), but the prognostic value of transvalvular flow rate (TFR) has not been consistently established across studies. This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies (published by November 14, 2025) comparing low versus normal TFR in AS. Data were collected from Kaplan-Meier curves. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Survival was assessed using pooled Kaplan-Meier curves, Cox regression, flexible parametric survival models, and restricted mean survival time (RMST) analysis. A total of 9 studies including 6,494 patients were analyzed; 2,575 (39.7%) had low TFR. At 8 years of follow-up, estimated survival was 34.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 24.7% to 47%) in the low-TFR group and 63% (95% CI 58.9% to 67.4%) in the normal-TFR group. Low TFR was associated with higher all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 1.59, 95% CI 1.45 to 1.74, p < 0.001). We observed a progressively greater hazard over time, with the hazard ratio approaching 1.9 by 8 years. At 8 years, RMST in the normal-TFR group was 7.37 years (95% CI 7.21 to 7.53 years) versus 5.07 years (95% CI 4.91 to 5.23 years) in the low-TFR group, representing a lifetime loss of 2.3 years in the low-TFR group (ΔRMST -2.30 years, 95% CI -2.53 to -2.07 years, p < 0.001). In patients with AS, low TFR is associated with significantly higher mortality and lifetime loss. These findings support TFR as a clinically meaningful marker for risk stratification in AS.
OBJECTIVE: Analysis of critical end diastolic left ventricular volume (EDLVV), defined as the lowest acceptable volume to keep cardiac output, in the selection of patients with post-valvotomy aortic stenosis, candidates to univentricular correction. METHODS: A retrospective study in 21 patients with aortic stenosis, during the first year of life, and 232 patients compiled from literature. Values of end diastolic volume (EDLVV), from 20 to 60 ml/m2 were determined as normal. The EDLVV of deceased patients was compared to that from survival patients. A correlation between the age and EDLVV was carried out at the time of valvotomy, between the groups. Finally, the critical EDLVV through the theoretical relationship between the EDLVV and heart rate for different ejection fractions and designated cardiac indexes (CI): 2,000 and 2,500 20-60 ml/min/m2 was determined. RESULTS: For EDLVV values < 20 ml/m2 and > 60 ml/m2, there was statistical significance between deceased and survival patients (p < 0.0001). However, in the range between 20 and 60 ml/m2, that significance was lower (p = 0.0309). A greater incidence of death took place among those who showed it in the first week of life. For a CI of 2,500 ml/min/m2 and a heart rate (HR) of 140 bpm, critical EDLVV will be 26 ml/m2 if left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is 0.70, and 44.5 ml/m2, if LVFE is 0.40. CONCLUSION: The analysis of critical end diastolic left ventricular volume (EDLVV) can add another parameter in the indication of univentricular correction in patients with post-valvotomy aortic stenosis, during the first year of life.
Aortic valve replacement following previous coronary surgery is associated with high risk. Major intraoperative problems include those associated with reentry, damage to the left internal mammary artery and myocardial protection. These factors influence operative results and eventual outcome to a large extent. The available evidence largely consists of retrospective series and case reports, with their own institutional bias, and it has been difficult to make specific recommendations on the basis of this evidence. However the article reviews the various surgical options available to manage this difficult subset of patients and discusses their pros and cons.