Valvular & structural heart diseaseCohort study

Prognostication and Interventional Guidance Using Acceleration-Ejection Time Ratio in Undifferentiated Paradoxical Low-Flow Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis

JACC Cardiovasc ImagingPublished

  • Cohort study

Authors' conclusion

AT:ET ≥0.35 in PLFAS predicts poorer outcomes and/or need for AVR.

Study context

Population
Patients with paradoxical low-flow low-gradient AS (PLFAS; AVA <1.0 cm² or indexed AVA <0.6 cm²/m², mean gradient <40 mm Hg, indexed stroke volume <35 mL/m², LVEF ≥50%)median follow-up 8.9 years
Participants
171 patients
Exposure
Acceleration (AT):Ejection (ET) ≥0.35 vs AT:ET <0.35
Outcome
Composite of:
  • Cardiac mortality
  • AVR
Follow-up
5 years

Main finding

Cardiac mortality or AVR

Hazard ratio

4.77

95% CI 2.94–7.75

P < 0.001

AT:ET ≥0.35 vs AT:ET <0.35
HR 4.77 (95% CI 2.94–7.75); P < 0.001

As reported in the abstract

Net reclassification improvement over standard indices of stenosis severity
0.57 [95% CI: 0.14-0.84]

Observational data: associations, not effects.

Secondary outcomes

OutcomeHR (95% CI)P value
Cardiac death · competing risk analysis2.91 (1.47–5.76)P = 0.002
AVR · competing risk analysis8.45 (4.16–17.1)P < 0.001
Effect of AVR on mortality, AT:ET ≥0.35 (subgroup) · 5 years — AVR vs AT:ET <0.35 · cardiac mortality0.09 (0.02–0.36)P < 0.001
Effect of AVR on mortality, AT:ET ≥0.35 (subgroup) · 5 years — AVR vs AT:ET <0.35 · all-cause mortality0.16 (0.07–0.38)P < 0.001

All-cause mortality

No difference in all-cause mortality

Effect of aortic valve replacement (AVR) on survival, AT:ET <0.35 (subgroup)

No improvement in survival from AVR

Original publication

Prognostication and Interventional Guidance Using Acceleration-Ejection Time Ratio in Undifferentiated Paradoxical Low-Flow Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. Published 14 August 2024. doi:10.1016/j.jcmg.2024.05.015

Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it