|
|
Cardiovasc Ultrasound. 2006; 4: 25.
Published online 2006 June 27. doi:
10.1186/1476-7120-4-25.
Factors affecting left ventricular remodeling after
valve replacement for aortic stenosis. An overview
Emmanuel Villa, 1,2
Giovanni Troise,1 Marco Cirillo,1 Federico
Brunelli,1 Margherita Dalla Tomba,1 Zen
Mhagna,1 Giordano Tasca,1 and Eugenio
Quaini1
1Cardiac Surgery Unit, Cardiovascular Dept.
Poliambulanza Foundation Hospital, Brescia, Italy
2University of Milan, Milan, Italy
Received December 2, 2005; Accepted June 27, 2006.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/redirect3.cgi?&&reftype=extlink&artid=1524988&iid=126491&jid=195&&http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly
cited. |
|
Abstract
Although a small percentage of patients with critical aortic stenosis
do not develop left ventricle hypertrophy, increased ventricular mass is
widely observed in conditions of increased afterload. There is growing
epidemiological evidence that hypertrophy is associated with excess
cardiac mortality and morbidity not only in patients with arterial
hypertension, but also in those undergoing aortic valve replacement. Valve
replacement surgery relieves the aortic obstruction and prolongs the life
of many patients, but favorable or adverse left ventricular remodeling is
affected by a large number of factors whose specific roles are still a
subject of debate. Age, gender, hemodynamic factors, prosthetic valve
types, myocyte alterations, interstitial structures, blood pressure
control and ethnicity can all influence the process of left ventricle mass
regression, and myocardial metabolism and coronary artery circulation are
also involved in the changes occurring after aortic valve replacement. The
aim of this overview is to analyze these factors in the light of our
experience, elucidate the important question of prosthesis-patient
mismatch by considering the method of effective orifice area, and discuss
surgical timings and techniques that can improve the management of
patients with aortic valve stenosis and maximize the probability of mass
regression.
|
|
Review
Left ventricular pressure overload due to aortic valve stenosis (AS)
leads to a marked hypertrophic response of the myocardium, which is
probably an adaptative reaction aimed at normalizing the increased wall
stress. Although a small percentage of patients with critical AS do not
develop left ventricle (LV) hypertrophy, increased LV thickness is widely
observed in conditions of increased afterload and is usually accompanied
by a parallel deposition of new sarcomers. This compensatory response
seems to maintain cardiac performance despite the high intracavitary
systolic pressure [1,2].
AS is a common disorder and the most frequent acquired valvular disease
in developed countries. The natural history of symptomatic patients is
dismal, and even asymptomatic subjects with a significant stenosis face a
risk of sudden death that has been reported to be ~1% per year [3,4].
Hypertrophy is common to pressure overload conditions such as arterial
hypertension, AS, aortic coartaction and hypertrophic obstructive
cardiomyopathy, and there is increasing epidemiological evidence that it
is associated with excess cardiac mortality and morbidity [5-9]. Moreover,
in isolated AS, it has recently been shown that increased LV mass alone
predicts systolic dysfunction and heart failure regardless of the severity
of the valvular obstruction. For this reason, LV hypertrophy can be
interpreted as being a synonymous with a maladaptive response to aortic
valve disease rather than a compensatory reaction [10]. Aortic valve
replacement (AVR) surgery dramatically changes the clinical course of
patients with AS by relieving the high pressure gradient and allowing the
reversal of the LV hypertrophic process. Age-corrected survival has been
reported to be nearly normal after AVR [11], but there are still some
questions as to whether the ventricular chamber can return to its normal
size, and how rapidly myocardial hypertrophy and LV dysfunction
regress.
What follows is an experience-based review of the factors involved, and
the extent to which the myocardium itself may recover (favorable
remodeling) or deteriorate (adverse remodeling).
|
|
Age
The prevalence of calcific AS increases with age (2 --4% of adults aged
more than 65 years) and, as the majority of patients suffering increased
mortality and morbidity due to aortic valve disorders are elderly [12], it
is extremely important to know whether they may benefit from AVR and if
favorable LV remodeling is probable [13]. Hanayama et al. have
recently reported that age is not a determinant of incomplete mass
regression after a mean follow-up of 3.75 years [14], and Gaudino et
al. have published a similar finding [15]. Using more accurate 3-D
echocardiography, Kuhl et al. consistently observed that
normalization of the LV mass index after one year was not related to age
at the time of surgery [16], but the results of studies by Lund et
al., who developed a preoperative prognostic index specifically
conceived for patients with AS undergoing AVR that included age,
indirectly suggest that age is associated with the LV mass index after 10
years: the higher scores correlated with a higher LV mass index during the
postoperative course [17]. Univariate and multivariate analysis of our own
patient series have not indicated age as a factor influencing the process
of mass regression even in the subgroup of patients with a
prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) [18,19].
|
|
Gender
It is known that there is a gender-related difference in the
development of pressure overload-induced LV hypertrophy: after adjusting
for body surface area, females have less mass, more concentric
hypertrophy, less wall tension, fewer alterations in passive elastic
properties, higher ejection fractions and smaller LV volumes [20-22]. The
effect of these gender-related differences in hypertrophy patterns on the
recovery and regression of the LV mass index is still being debated. In
their medium-term study, Hanayma et al. found that the LV
hypertrophy index of females was less likely to regress incompletely [14],
and we have found that female gender is an independent predictor of
greater LV mass regression except in the particular subgroup of patients
with PPM, in whom it plays no predictive role [18,19]. In the prognostic
index developed by Lund et al., female gender is a neutral factor
whereas male gender adds one point: i.e. it increases the risk of post-AVR
mortality and morbidity [17]. On the contrary, Del Rizzo et al.
found that male gender was an independent predictor of LV mass regression
after AVR with stentless bioprostheses [23] although, some years later,
Gelsomino et al, using another type of stentless xenograft, found
that it negatively affected LV mass regression [24]. However, gender
differences in LV adaptation do not seem to influence survival after AVR
[15,21,25,26]. Finally, the results of the 3-D echocardiography study by
Kuhl et al. indicate that 1-year LV mass index normalization is
unrelated to gender [16].
|
|
Hemodynamic
factors
The hemodynamic advantage of AVR arises from its ability to minimize
postoperative gradients and favor the normalization of LV mass and
function but, although it intuitively seems to be quite important, the
influence of hemodynamic variables on the extent of LV mass regression is
controversial.
A PPM is considered such when the effective orifice area (EOA) of the
implanted prosthesis is less than that of the normal human valve: i.e. too
small in relation to body surface area (BSA). This is a crucial parameter
when evaluating the performance of valve substitutes: some authors have
found that PPM leads to higher mortality rates [27,28] and others have
found no effect on overall survival [14,15,29], but there is considerable
evidence that it has detrimental implications in terms of LV workload
[19,23,29,30]. Moreover, its clinical impact seems to be related to both
its severity and LV function, thus underlining the fact that a diseased
ventricle is much more sensitive to increased afterload [27]. Indexed EOA
(EOA divided by BSA) is decidedly a more physiological parameter to adopt
in defining PPM, whereas the labeled or internal geometric size of the
prosthesis may be misleading [31,32]. It has been demonstrated that, in
order to avoid any significant gradient at rest or during exercise, the
indexed EOA of a prosthetic aortic valve should ideally be no less than
~0.8 --0.9 cm2/m2. However, in clinical practice,
post-AVR indexed EOA be less than this for a number of reasons: the size
of the aortic annulus may be reduced because of calcifications, fibrosis,
hypertrophy in the LV outflow tract, or because the structural support of
the valve prosthesis may be quite bulky (especially in older models) and
create a relative obstruction to flow. Moreover, the procedures for
implanting an adequate prosthesis in a small and severely calcified aortic
root (annulus enlargement, root replacement, LV outflow enlargement) can
be technically more difficult and often require a longer period of aortic
cross-clamping. They may also be contraindicated in some situations: for
example, the presence of heavy and extended calcifications around the
coronary ostia does not allow root replacement and coronary artery
reimplantation. Consequently, the perceived balance between the increased
preoperative risk of the more complex operation needed to avoid a
potentially suboptimal late clinical outcome due to a small prosthesis,
and the chances of the patient experiencing meaningful long-term survival
and quality of life determines the surgeon's choice of prosthesis type and
size.
The true incidence of PPM can only be discovered using the EOA method
to evaluate the prosthesis performance. This has repeatedly shown that the
presence of PPM seriously hampers LV mass regression [18,23], whereas
older comparisons based on labeled prosthesis size found prostheses of
different sizes led to similar degrees of LV mass reduction even in the
case of PPM [33,34]. One expression of the potential severity of a
mismatch is given by the relationship showing that the transvalvular
gradient increases exponentially with a decrease in indexed EOA. We have
found an independent relationship between indexed EOA and the extent of LV
mass regression after AVR. Furthermore, the pattern of LV remodeling was
influenced by PPM, with a smaller decrease in chamber internal dimension
in patients with than in those without a mismatch [18]. We also found that
the degree of mass regression may vary markedly from one patient to
another. Some patients with PPM may therefore show a substantial
regression in LV hypertrophy despite the presence of a relatively high
residual transvalvular gradient because the regression in LV mass in such
patients is independently influenced by the relative increase in valve EOA
achieved by AVR (Fig. 1) [19]. This explains why some authors have
reported that patients with PPM and/or small prostheses show significant
reductions in LV mass.
In conclusion, even in the presence of PPM, surgery usually improves
hemodynamics. The extent of the improvement can be quite important and it
is likely that the best results can be expected if PPM is completely
avoided. Moreover, the relationship between gradients and indexed EAO is
curvilinear, and the implications for a given patient are directly related
to his/her original and final positions on the indexed EAO-gradient curve
[30,31]. One practical approach to reduce the impact of PPM is to begin by
determining preoperatively the minimum EOA that the implanted prosthesis
should have to avoid moderate-to-severe PPM. This is done by multiplying
the patient's BSA (calculated on the basis of his/her weight and height)
by 0.85 cm2/m2: for example, if the BSA is 1.7
cm2/m2, the minimum EOA is 1.7*0.85 = 1.44
cm2. The next step is verifying which of the available
prostheses have the same or a larger EOA by looking at the widely
available published data reported in the literature or provided by the
manufacturers (Tab.1) [27,30]. In this way, at the time of the operation,
the surgeon can attempt to implant one of the selected prostheses or, if
technically possible, perform an aortic root enlargement or other
procedure to enable the accommodation of a valve with the adequate
EOA.
|
|
Valve
type
Pibarot et al. have reported the relative positions of
different types of biological aortic valve substitutes on the exponential
curve linking the transvalvular gradient and indexed EOA [30]. The
majority of patients with a stented prosthesis have an indexed EAO of
[less-than-or-equal] 0.85 cm2/m2 and are therefore
on the steep portion of the curve, where the gradients are relatively
high, whereas most patients with a stentless prosthesis and almost all of
those undergoing an aortic homograft or pulmonary autograft have a larger
indexed EOA and are on the flat portion of the curve, where the gradients
are relatively low [30,35]. It is possible that the consequences on LV
mass regression may eventually be predicted on the basis of these
findings, but it is currently hazardous to do so for a number of reasons.
Firstly, there is a lack of randomized prospective studies of homogeneous
cohorts relating valve types and their benefits in terms of mass
reduction. Secondly, there are differences in the indications,
availability and technical risks related to the various valve substitutes:
i.e. the hypothetical superiority of mechanical prostheses in terms of
hypertrophy regression does not change the indication for a biological
prosthesis in the elderly. Thirdly, recently published studies have failed
to demonstrate any robust advantage of a particular type of substitute.
Like Gaudino et al. very recently [15], Hanayma et al.
found that the type of prosthesis did not predict the extent of
postoperative LV mass regression in a long-term prospective study
comparing stented porcine valves, stented pericardial prostheses,
stentless porcine valves, and tilting and bileaflet mechanical prostheses
[14]; furthermore, Kuhl et al. found that 1-year normalization of
the LV mass index studied by means of 3-D echocardiography was not related
to valve type [16], and a tentative meta-analysis of 501 patients by
Sharma et al. revealed no substantial advantage of stentless over
stented valves in terms of the rate of LV mass regression [26]. Also in
prospective, multicenter randomized comparisons there were similar
reductions in LV mass at 12 months with both stented and stentless valves
despite significant differences in indexed EOA and peak flow velocity in
favor of the stentless valves [Circ 2005]. We have studied stented and
stentless biological valves and mechanical prostheses in the challenging
subgroup of patients with PPM and concluded that valve type was not one of
the factors influencing mass regression [19]. In fact, we feel that other
factors must also be considered (see Non-hemodynamic factors and
Conclusions) and that any comparisons must always be made at homogeneous
values of indexed EOA because stratification by prosthesis diameter or
size is probably erroneous.
|
|
Myocardial
metabolism
It has been shown that LV hypertrophy can be accompanied by alterations
in myocardial high-energy phosphate metabolism [36], but it is only
recently that the availability of magnetic resonance (MR) spectroscopy has
made it possible to study these alterations after AVR [37]. Changes in
myocardial high-energy phosphate metabolism are usually expressed as
changes in the phosphocreatine-to-adenosine triphosphate (PCr-ATP) ratio,
which is reduced in AS pressure overload. Beyerbacht et al.
attributed pre-AVR findings of a reduced ratio at rest to myocardial
stress and ischemia: i.e. a hypertrophy-induced imbalance between
myocardial oxygen supply and demand. Consequently, a recovery in the
post-AVR myocardial PCr-ATP ratio accompanied by a reduction in the LV
mass index (as revealed by studying LV geometry and function) may indicate
that the reduced pressure overload has decreased the metabolic demand of
the myocardium and improved coronary blood flow. The same authors also
reported a statistically significant correlation between myocardial
high-energy phosphate metabolism and LV diastolic function [37].
|
|
Diastole
Doppler echocardiographic alterations in LV diastolic function occur
early under conditions of pressure overload and precede the increase in LV
mass. It is not clear whether the early reduction in afterload immediately
after AVR (when hypertrophy is still present) also leads to improved
diastolic function. Assessments of the time constant of relaxation, peak
filling rate and the constant of myocardial stiffness by Villari et
al. after 89 [plus minus] 21 months have shown that diastolic
function normalizes only late after AVR [38]. This indicates that the
process of favorable remodeling (i.e. the regression of myocardial
hypertrophy and interstitial fibrosis) is slow and may allow
diastolic normalization only after its completion. Hess et al.
previously made another important contribution based on endomyocardial
biopsies obtained before and after surgery, and simultaneous
echocardiography and pressure measurements, which showed that diastolic
alterations persist after AVR due to increased myocardial stiffness [39].
Their findings of a decrease in muscle fiber diameter and a relative
increase in interstitial fibrosis, without any change in fibrous content,
showed that the post-AVR regression of myocardial hypertrophy was
accompanied by an increase in myocardial stiffness due to the relatively
slower remodeling of the extracellular compartment. These conditions are
not incompatible with the full normalization of the diastolic parameters
described by Villari et al. because the follow-up of their study
was longer.
Another contribution comes from Ikonomidis et al., who
assessed the effect of residual pressure overload on the regression of LV
hypertrophy and its relationship to diastolic function two months and four
years after AVR [40]. Isovolumic relaxation significantly decreased from
93 [plus minus] 20 ms to 78 [plus minus] 12 ms to 81 [plus minus] 15 ms,
and deceleration time from 241 [plus minus] 102 ms to 205 [plus minus] 77
ms to 226 [plus minus] 96 ms. The prolonged isovolumic relaxation time was
associated with significant septal and posterior wall hypertrophy, whereas
the prolonged deceleration time was related to a high residual gradient.
They concluded that LV diastolic function improves early after surgery in
parallel with the reduction in the aortic gradient, but prolonged Doppler
indices of myocardial relaxation and ventricular filling were observed in
patients with significant LV hypertrophy and a residual pressure gradient
soon after surgery. They also reported that diastolic function remained
improved four years postoperatively [40].
In a recent longer follow-up study of a large and representative
population of patients with a mean age of 67 [plus minus] 8.6 years,
Gjertsson et al. [41] evaluated diastolic function by integrating
mitral and pulmonary venous flow data. The patients were divided into two
groups on the basis of whether their filling pattern indicated normal/mild
or moderate/severe diastolic dysfunction. Eighty-three percent of the
patients showed signs of LV hypertrophy preoperatively; this had decreased
to 29% (p < 0.001) after two years but no further decrease was found
after 10 years. Deceleration time decreased during the follow-up, whereas
the E/A and S/D ratios increased. The percentage of patients with
moderate/severe diastolic dysfunction remained unchanged between the
preoperative and 2-year examinations (7% vs 13%; p = 0.27), but
increased after 10 years (61%; p < 0.0001). Although the findings
regarding the degree of LV mass reduction agree with those of other
investigators [38,40], the prevalence of disturbed diastolic function was
unexpected and related by the authors to the older age of their study
cohort. This may also imply a more advanced degree of interstitial
fibrosis due to longer exposure to pressure overload, and a consequently
limited possibility of favorable remodeling: i.e. severe diastolic
dysfunction indicates non-reversible myocardial changes. Although
distinguishing the effects of age and long-term exposure to increased
afterload is important in terms of AVR timing, it has still not been done.
Gjertsson et al. did not make a specific analysis in relation to
PPM (see Hemodynamic factors), but the patients with the worst diastolic
function after 10 years had a significantly higher prosthesis gradient
[41]. This indirectly further underlines the importance of avoiding PPM in
order to optimize outcomes.
|
|
Ejection
fraction
The effect of LV systolic function on mass regression has rarely been
investigated in detail. Lund et al. performed transmural biopsies
during AVR and found that the preoperative LV ejection fraction (EF)
inversely correlated with myocyte nucleus volume and the fibrous tissue,
muscle cell and LV mass indices. The LV mass index 18 months after AVR was
significantly related to the above mentioned morphological parameters,
thus suggesting that favorable remodeling after the removal of the
hypertrophy trigger may be predetermined by profound changes in
hypertrophied myocytes and ventricular fibrosis in many patients [42].
Kuhl et al. consistently found that LV mass index studied by
means of 3-D echocardiography was less likely to normalize one year after
AVR in patients with a reduced preoperative EF [16]. Our own early
follow-up findings do not indicate EF as a factor influencing LV mass
regression, and Hanayama et al. also failed to find any
difference in preoperative EF between the patients with a normal or
abnormal LV mass index after a longer follow-up [14,19]. However,
particular attention is required in the subgroup of patients with severe
ventricular dysfunction and certain surgical strategies may promote LV
recovery [35].
|
|
Coronary
circulation
Epicardial coronary arteries are larger in patients with aortic valve
disease, but it has been reported that the appropriateness of their
cross-sectional areas normalized on the basis of muscle mass is
inadequate, and this contributes to explain the anginal symptoms that
occur in AS: after AVR, reduced LV hypertrophy and smaller coronary
arteries allow a more adequate match of coronary size and muscle mass
[43]. However, in addition to alterations in epicardial arteries,
abnormalities in microcirculatory function may play a major role in
causing the reduced coronary vasodilator reserve and subendocardial
ischemia typically observed in AS. Reduced diastolic perfusion, and
increased systolic impedance to coronary flow due to perivascular
compression, are considered to be primary contributors to impaired
coronary microcirculatory function, mainly because of the reduction in
maximal myocardial blood flow. The role of favorable post-AVR LV
remodeling in the coronary microcirculation has recently been investigated
by means of positron emission tomography and MR. The conclusion was that
changes in microcirculatory function did not directly depend on LV mass
regression, and it was suggested that reduced extravascular compression
and an increased diastolic perfusion time may be the main mechanisms
improving hyperemic myocardial blood flow and restoring coronary
vasodilatation reserve after AVR [44]. Cheaper, reliable and more
accessible non-invasive tools than positron emission tomography are now
gaining acceptance as a means of exploring coronary microcirculation
impairment, and it should not be long before further documentation of
post-surgical vascular remodeling is available [45]. AS shares many risk
factors with atherosclerotic coronary artery disease (CAD), and it is
known that concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting increases the
operative risk of AVR. Biederman et al. have recently reported
that CAD also has a negative impact on reverse remodeling, as revealed by
means of the very promising method of intramyocardial MR imaging [46].
They inferred that the presence of CAD is sufficient to delay LV mass
regression via a number of putative pathways, notably an inability to
reset mRNA signaling and a failure to inactivate the metalloproteinases
that promote interstitial fibrosis and blunt its reabsorption after AVR,
and pointed out the need to reconsider the timing of surgery in patients
with concomitant CAD [46].
|
|
Non-hemodynamic factors
Many factors are recognized as influencing the sequence of biological
events that lead to the development of LV hypertrophy. Hemodynamic load is
the fundamental stimulus, but genotype, gender and other not fully
determined genetic and environmental factors regulate the growth of LV
mass by means of proto-oncogenes, growth factors, neurohormones and
cytokines [47]. The degree of the resulting structural changes, which may
be compensatory or inappropriate but are probably always pathological
[10], may influence the post-AVR remodeling process. It is in fact known
that the regression potential of a hypertrophied LV is only partially
influenced by improved hemodynamics, and some authors have therefore
investigated the role of preoperative ultrastructural myocardial
abnormalities. Lund et al. have conducted many studies in this
field and, in 1998, published an interesting paper in which the findings
from transmural biopsies taken during AVR were related to instrumental
results after 18 months and to medium/long-term clinical outcomes [42].
Generally, a high nucleus volume, muscle cell mass index and fibrous
tissue mass index were related to advanced disease characterized by
impaired LV systolic and diastolic function, whereas the aortic valve
gradient and wall stress did not correlate with any of the histological
variables. Eighteen months after AVR, the LV mass index had decreased
significantly, but the relative mass reduction was unrelated to the
postoperative peak Doppler gradient, the diameter of the orifice of the
prosthesis or the type of valve (which were not evaluated using the
indexed EOA method). On the contrary, favorable remodeling was inversely
related to muscle cell diameter, nucleus volume, percent fibrosis, the
muscle cell mass index and the fibrous tissue mass index observed at the
time of AVR, with the first two being the foremost determinants. Moreover,
only 17% of the patients had a normal ventricular mass, although
significant hypertrophy regression did take place. The extent of this
regression after the removal of the hemodynamic trigger therefore seems to
be predetermined by the presence of presumably irreversible myocyte
abnormalities despite successful AVR [42]. In particular survival was
inversely related to myocardial nucleus size (Fug.2). Prolonging the
observation period and charting the time course of the LV mass index
confirmed the pattern of regression, which was highly significant during
the first 1.5 years, after which there was no further change up to 10
years. A lower LV mass index after 1.5 years was therefore a better
predictor of long-term survival [17]. The potential for regression is the
crucial point when evaluating the correct timing of surgery in patients
with AS. The prognostic index developed by Lund et al. can
estimate this potential because of its significant correlation with the LV
mass index and long-term survival [17].
We have also searched for preoperative factors affecting absolute LV
mass regression and, after an intermediate follow-up, we found that a
higher preoperative LV mass was an independent non-hemodynamic predictor
of greater regression (p < 0.0001), a finding that was also confirmed
in patients with PPM [18,19]. This may explain why LV mass significantly
regresses even in patients receiving a small prosthesis, although it does
not necessarily mean that the regression is optimal or complete. Analysis
of the data coming from a longer follow-up study currently coming to an
end at our institution should further elucidate our preliminary findings
concerning the role of preoperative non-hemodynamic factors. Hanayama
et al. have recently found that, in addition to male gender, the
extent of preoperative hypertrophy was the most important predictor of
incomplete mass regression in a large study group and, like Gaudino et
al. and Lund et al. previously [15,17], suggested that
earlier surgical intervention may reduce the extent of postoperative
residual hypertrophy and thus improve the outcome [17].
|
|
Conclusion
Over the last 50 years, aortic valve surgery has made enormous strides
towards the durable and physiological performance of aortic valve
prostheses, thus allowing the restoration of normal LV structure and
function. Interactions between surgeons and physicians have not only led
to improvements in operative techniques and results, but have also
facilitated a better knowledge of LV pathophysiology. We now understand
much more about the nature of myocardial adaptation to pressure overload
and myocardial responses to AVR, but some limitations need to be
considered. The literature pertaining to the effects and efficacy of
surgery largely consists of heterogeneous studies of relatively small
populations, and differences in terms of patient selection, evaluated
outcomes, operative interventions, and the timing of postoperative
follow-up examinations limit their general applicability. Even the
apparent simplicity of evaluating LV hypertrophy by means of
echocardiography hides some intrinsic and largely unrecognized critical
steps that may sometimes limit its clinical validity [48]. One positive
note is that some of the discrepancies (such as the prevalence of PPM) are
only apparent because an in-depth analysis may reveal that certain types
of prosthesis are no longer implanted: for example, some studies included
patients receiving the bulky and no longer available Starr-Edwards
ball-caged valve [17], whereas many surgeons are now opting for
supra-annular prostheses that allow improved hemodynamics even in small
aortic annuli, and so better results can be expected in the future [49].
Other surgical options for minimizing PPM are also available, such as the
replacement of the entire aortic root or the aortic root enlargement
procedure described by Castro et al. [50], which bears the same
operative risk as standard AVR and minimizes the incidence of PPM. In our
institution, we have concentrated on the question of subvalvular
obstruction because it has been reported that fixed or dynamic obstruction
of the LV outflow tract after AVR is responsible for residual symptoms and
incomplete hypertrophy regression, and found that a strategy including
myectomy-myotomy before prosthetic valve implantation positively
influences LV mass regression and favorable LV remodeling (Additional File
1) [51].
Other often-overlooked factors affecting the postoperative course are
now emerging, such as ethnicity or arterial hypertension [15,48,52,53]. In
particular, high blood pressure after AVR is gaining increasing attention
as a strong and independent determinant of slower and incomplete mass
regression. Research is also going forward at cellular level, and we early
demonstrated that myocyte hyperplasia significantly contributes to LV
hypertrophy: the increased cardiac mass associated with human AS is due to
a combination of myocyte hypertrophy and hyperplasia, and intense new
myocyte formation takes place as a result of the differentiation of
stem-like cells committed to the myocyte lineage in response to an
increased workload [54]. These findings, together with the identification
of new environmental or genetic factors, will lead to new interpretations
of the maladaptative mechanism of LV hypertrophy and the process of mass
regression at cellular level. Meanwhile randomized comparison of stentless
versus stented valves failed to affirm the superiority of stentless
prosthesis. Actually, despite significant differences in indexed EOA and
peak flow velocity in favor of the stentless valve, there were similar
reduction in LV mass at 6 months with both stented and stentless valves,
which persisted at 12 months [55].
Post-AVR residual hypertrophy is a complex and important phenomenon
and, although its incidence is decreasing, it still represents a vexing
problem that has an impact on morbidity and, probably, mortality. There is
no doubt that meticulous blood pressure control and an optimized drug
regimen are fundamental, but the curative potential of surgery in AS may
only be fully revealed by adopting a different timing for AVR. Earlier
surgery can also be considered for asymptomatic patients with moderate AS
and a low expected operative mortality who show a marked hypertrophic
myocardial response to the increased afterload. No clinical trial has yet
compared an early surgical strategy based on the degree of myocardial
hypertrophic remodeling with the traditional timing mainly based on
symptoms and valve parameters, although the former makes sense as it has
been shown that preserved or supranormal LV chamber performance can mask
myocardial tissue dysfunction and surgery could hypothetically prevent it.
However, surgery has already improved the prognosis of patients with AS,
and many intraoperative options are now available to tailor the right
operation for each patient. In our experience, every effort should be made
if a small projected indexed EOA is expected to choose a prosthesis with
the best projected indexed EOA and implant it adequately by adding other
procedures, such as myotomy-myectomy, that allow favorable remodeling and
the long-term benefits of LV mass regression.
|
|
Competing
interests
The author(s) declare that they have no competing interests.
|
|
Contributions
All authors contributed to the paper and meet the criteria for
authorship. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
|
|
Supplementary Material
Additional File 1
Myectomy-myotomy before prosthetic valve implantation. (The sequence is
extrapolated from an aortic root replacement -- Bentall operation and the
excision is performed in the proximal interventricular septum under the
commissure between the ablated left and right aortic cusp).
[video/mpeg] Click here for file
(3.0M)
|
|
Acknowledgements
We appreciate the work of colleagues, nurses and technicians of the
whole Cardiovascular Department of Poliambulanza Foundation Hospital.
|
|
References
- Grossman W, Jones D, McLaurin LP. Wall stress and patterns of
hypertrophy in the human left ventricle. J Clin Invest. 1975;56:56–64.
- Gaasch WH. Left ventricular radius to wall thickness ratio. Am J Cardiol. 1979;43:1189–1194. doi:
10.1016/0002-9149(79)90152-8.
- Turina J, Hess O, Sepulcri F, Krayenbuehl HP. Spontaneous course of
aortic valve disease. Eur Heart
J. 1987;8:471–483.
- Pellikka PA, Sarano ME, Nishimura RA, Malouf JF, Bailey KR, Scott
CG, Barnes ME, Tajik AJ. Outcome of 662 adults with asymptomatic,
hemodynamically significant aortic stenosis during prolonged follow-up.
Circulation. 2005;111:3290–3295. doi:
10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.104.495903.
- Levy D, Garrison RJ, Savage DD, Kannel WB, Castelli WP. Prognostic
implication of echocardiographically determined left ventricular mass in
the Framingham Heart Study. New
Engl J Med. 1990;322:1561–1566.
- Bikkina M, Larson MG, Levy D. Asymptomatic ventricular arrhythmias
and mortality risk in subjects with left ventricular hypertrophy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993;22:1111–1116.
- Devereux RB, de Simone G, Ganau A, Roman MJ. Left ventricular
hypertrophy and geometric remodeling in hypertension: stimuli,
functional consequences and prognostic implication. J Hypertens Suppl. 1994;12:117–127.
- Sullivan JM, Vandez Zwaag RV, el-Zeky F, Ramanathan KB, Mirvis DM.
Left ventricular hypertrophy: effect on survival. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993;22:508–513.
- Haider AW, Larson MG, Benjamin EJ, Levy D. Increased left
ventricular mass and hypertrophy are associated with increased risk for
sudden death. J Am Coll Cardiol.
1998;32:1454–1459. doi:
10.1016/S0735-1097(98)00407-0.
- Kupari M, Turto H, Lommi J. Left ventricular hypertrophy in aortic
valve stenosis: preventive or promotive of systolic dysfunction and
heart failure? Eur Heart J.
2005;26:1790–1796. doi:
10.1093/eurheartj/ehi290.
- Lindblom D, Lindblom U, Qvist J, Lundstrom H. Long-term relative
survival rates after heart valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1990;15:566–573.
- Otto CM, Lind BK, Kitzman DW, Gersh BJ, Siscovick DS. Association of
aortic valve sclerosis with cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in
the elderly. New Engl J Med.
1999;341:142–147. doi:
10.1056/NEJM199907153410302.
- Natsuaki M, Itoh T, Tomita S, Naito K. Reversibility of cardiac
dysfunction after valve replacement in elderly patients with severe
aortic stenosis. Ann Thorac
Surg. 1998;68:257–259.
- Hanayama N, Christakis GT, Mallidi HR, Rao V, Cohen G, Goldman BS,
Fremes S, Morgan CD, Joyner CD. Determinants of incomplete mass
regression following aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis. J Card Surg. 2005;20:307–313. doi:
10.1111/j.1540-8191.2005.200485.x.
- Gaudino M, Alessandrini F, Glieca F, Luciani N, Cellini C, Pragliola
C, Morelli M, Canosa C, Nasso G, Possati G. Survival after aortic valve
replacement for aortic stenosis: does left ventricular mass regression
have a clinical correlate? Eur
Heart J. 2005;26:51–57. doi:
10.1093/eurheartj/ehi012.
- Kuhl HP, Franke A, Puschmann D, Schonudbe FA, Hoffmann R, Hanrath P.
Regression of left ventricular mass one year after aortic valve
replacement for pure severe aortic stenosis. Am J Cardiol. 2002;89:408–413. doi:
10.1016/S0002-9149(01)02262-7.
- Lund O, Emmersten K, Dorup I, Jensen FT, Flo C. Regression of left
ventricular hypertrophy during 10 years after valve replacement for
aortic stenosis is related the preoperative risk. Eur Heart J. 2003;24:1437–1446. doi:
10.1016/S0195-668X(03)00316-6.
- Tasca G, Brunelli F, Cirillo M, Dalla Tomba M, Mhagna Z, Troise G,
Quaini E. Impact of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch on left
ventricular mass regression following aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 2005;79:505–510. doi:
10.1016/j.athoracsur.2004.04.042.
- Tasca G, Brunelli F, Cirillo M, Dalla Tomba M, Mhagna Z, Troise G,
Quaini E. Impact of the improvement of valve area achieved with aortic
valve replacement on the regression of left ventricular hypertrophy in
patients with pure aortic stenosis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2005;79:1291–1296. doi:
10.1016/j.athoracsur.2004.09.002.
- Rohde LE, Zhi G, Aranki SF, Beckel NE, Lee RT, Reinold SC.
Gender-associated differences in left ventricular geometry in patients
with aortic valve disease and effect of distinct overload subsets. Am J Cardiol. 1997;80:475–480. doi:
10.1016/S0002-9149(97)00398-6.
- Bech-Hanssen O, Wallentin I, Houltz E, Beckman Suurkula M, Larsson
S, Caidahl K. Gender differences in patients with severe aortic
stenosis: impact on preoperative left ventricular geometry and function,
as well as early postoperative morbidity and mortality. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg.
1999;15:24–30. doi:
10.1016/S1010-7940(98)00268-1.
- Villari B, Campbell SE, Schneider J, Vassalli G, Chiariello M, Hess
OM. Sex-dependent differences in left ventricular function and structure
in chronic pressure overload. Eur Heart J. 1995;16:1410–1419.
- Del Rizzo DF, Abdoh A, Cartier P, Doty P, Westabay S. Factors
affecting left ventricular mass regression after aortic valve
replacement with stentless valves. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg.
1999;11:114–120.
- Gelsomino S, Frassani M, Morocutti R, Nucifora R, Da Col P, Minen G,
Morelli A, Livi U. Time course of left ventricular remodeling after
stentless aortic valve replacement. Am Heart J. 2001;142:556–562. doi: 10.1067/mhj.2001.117777.
- Morris, JJ.; Schaff, HV.; Mullany, CJ.; Morris, PB.; Frye, Rl.;
Orszulak, TA. Gender differences in left ventricular functional response
to aortic valve replacement. Circulation. 1994. pp. 183–189.
- Sharma UC, Barenburg P, Pokharel S, Dassen WRM, Pinto YM, Maessen
JG. Systematic review of the outcome of aortic valve replacement in
patients with aortic stenosis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2004;78:90–95. doi:
10.1016/j.athoracsur.2004.02.020.
- Blais C, Dumesnil JG, Baillot R, Simard S, Doyle D, Pibarot P.
Impact of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch on short-term mortality
after aortic valve replacement. Circulation. 2003;108:983–988. doi:
10.1161/01.CIR.0000085167.67105.32.
- Rao, V.; Jamieson, E.; Ivanov, J.; Armstrong, S.; David, TE.
Prosthesis-patient mismatch affects survival after aortic valve
replacement. Circulation. 2000. pp. 5–9.
- Ruel M, Rubens FD, Masters RG, Pipe AL, Bedard P, Hendry PJ, Lam BK,
Burwash IG, Goldstein WG, Brais MP, Keon WJ, Mesana TG. Late incidence
and predictors of persistent or recurrent heart failure in patients with
aortic prosthetic valves. J
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2004;127:149–159. doi:
10.1016/j.jtcvs.2003.07.043.
- Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Hemodynamic and clinical impact of
prosthesis-patient mismatch in the aortic valve position and its
prevention. J Am Coll Cardiol.
2000;36:1131–1141. doi:
10.1016/S0735-1097(00)00859-7.
- Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG, Cartier PC, Metras J, Lemieux MD.
Patient-prosthesis mismatch can be predicted at the time of operation.
Ann Thorac Surg.
2001:265–268. doi: 10.1016/S0003-4975(01)02509-7.
- Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG, Jobin J, Cartier P, Honos G, Durand LG.
Usefulness of the indexed effective orifice area at rest in predicting
an increase in gradient during maximum exercise in patients with a
bioprosthesis in the aortic valve position. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;34:1609–1617. doi:
10.1016/S0735-1097(99)00360-5.
- Tasca G, Brunelli F, Cirillo M, Amaducci A, Mhagna Z, Troise G,
Quaini E. Mass regression in aortic stenosis after replacement with
small size pericardial bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2003;76:1107–1113. doi:
10.1016/S0003-4975(03)00823-3.
- Medalion B, Blackstone EH, Lytle BW, White J, Arnold JH, Cosgrove
DM. Aortic valve replacement: is valve size important? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg.
2000;119:963–974. doi:
10.1016/S0022-5223(00)70091-2.
- Bevilacqua S, Gianetti J, Ripoli A, Paradossi U, Cerillo AG, Glauber
M, Sacha Matteucci ML, Senni M, Gamba A, Quaini E, Ferrazzi P. Aortic
valve disease with severe ventricular dysfunction: stentless valve for
better recovery. Ann Thorac
Surg. 2002;75:2016–2021. doi:
10.1016/S0003-4975(02)03981-4.
- Neubauer S, Horn M, Pabst T, Harre K, Stromer H, Bertsch G,
Sandstede J, Ertl G, Hahn D, Kochsiek K. Cardiac high-energy phopsphate
metabolism in patients with aortic valve disease assessed by 31P
magnetic resonance spectroscopy. J Investig Med. 1997;45:453–462.
- Beyerbacht HP, Lamb HJ, van de Laarse A, Vliegen HW, Leujes F,
Hazekamp MG, de Roos A. Aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic
valve stenosis improves myocardial metabolism and diastolic function.
Radiology. 2001;219:637–643.
- Villari B, Vassalli G, Betocchi S, Briguori C, Chiariello M, Hess
OM. Normalization of left ventricular nonuniformity late after valve
replacement for aortic stenosis. Am J Cardiol. 1996;78:66–71. doi:
10.1016/S0002-9149(96)00229-9.
- Hess OM, Ritter M, Schneider J, Grimm J, Turina M, Krayenbuehl .
Diastolic stiffness and myocardial structure in aortic valve disease
before and after valve replacement. Circulation. 1984;69:855–865.
- Ikonomidis I, Tsoukas A, Parthenakis F, Gournizakis A, Kassimatis A,
Rallidis L, Nihoyannopoulos . Four year follow up of aortic valve
replacement for isolated aortic stenosis: a link between reduction in
pressure overload, regression of left ventricular hypertrophy, and
diastolic function. Heart.
2001;86:309–316. doi:
10.1136/heart.86.3.309.
- Gjertsson P, Caidahl K, Bech-Hanssen O. Left ventricular diastolic
dysfunction late after aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic
stenosis. Am J Cardiol.
2005;96:722–727. doi:
10.1016/j.amjcard.2005.04.052.
- Lund O, Kristensen LH, Baandrup U, Hansen OK, Nielsen TT, Emmertsen
K, Jensen FT, Flo C, Rasmussen BS, Pilegaard HK. Myocardial structure as
a determinant of pre- and postoperative ventricular function and
long-term prognosis after valve replacement for aortic stenosis. Eur Heart J. 1998;19:1099–1108. doi: 10.1053/euhj.1998.0872.
- Villari B, Hess OM, Meier C, Pucillo A, Gaglione A, Turina M,
Krayenbuehl . Regression of coronary artery dimensions after successful
aortic valve replacement. Circulation. 1992;85:972–978.
- Rajappan K, Rimoldi OE, Camici PG, Bellenger NG, Pennell DJ,
Sheridan DJ. Functional changes in coronary microcirculation after valve
replacement in patients with aortic stenosis. Circulation. 2003;107:3170–3175. doi:
10.1161/01.CIR.0000074211.28917.31.
- Dimitrow PP, Galderisi M, Rigo F. The non-invasive documentation of
coronary microcirculation impairment: role of transthoracic
echocardiography. Cardiovasc
Ultrasound. 2005;3:18. doi:
10.1186/1476-7120-3-18.
- Biederman, RWW.; Doyle, M.; Yamrozik, J.; Williams, RB.; Rathi, VK.;
Vido, D.; Caruppannan, K.; Osman, N.; Bress, V.; Rayarao, G.; Biederman,
CM.; Mankad, S.; Magovern, JA.; Reichek, N. Physiologic compensation is
supranormal in compensated aortic stenosis: does it return to normal
after aortic valve replacement or it is blunted by coexistent coronary
artery disease? Circulation. 2005. pp. 429–436.
- De Simone G, Pasanisi F, Contaldo F. Link of nonhemodynamic factors
to hemodynamic determinants of left ventricular hypertrophy. Hypertension. 2001;38:13–18.
- Foppa M, Duncan BB, Rohde LEP. Echocardiography-based left
ventricular mass estimation. How should we define hypertrophy? Cardiovasc Ultrasound.
2005;3:17. doi:
10.1186/1476-7120-3-17.
- Botzenhardt F, Eichinger WB, Bleiziffer S, Guenzinger R, Wagner IM,
Bauernschmitt , Lange R. Hemodynamic comparison of bioprostheses for
complete supra-annular position in patients with small aortic annulus.
J Am Coll Cardiol.
2005;45:2054–2060. doi:
10.1016/j.jacc.2005.03.039.
- Castro LJ, Arcidi JM, Fisher AL, Gaudiani VA. Routine enlargement of
the small aortic root: a preventive strategy to minimize mismatch. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002;74:31–36. doi:
10.1016/S0003-4975(02)03680-9.
- Tasca G, Amaducci A, Parrella PV, Troise G, Dalla Tomba M, Mhagna Z,
Quaini E. Myectomy-myotomy associated with aortic valve replacement for
aortic stenosis: effects on left ventricular mass regression. It Heart J. 2003;4:865–871.
- Imanaka K, Kohmoto O, Nishimura S, Yokote Y, Kyo S. Impact of
postoperative blood pressure control on regression of left ventricular
mass following valve replacement for aortic stenosis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg.
2005;27:994–999. doi:
10.1016/j.ejcts.2005.02.034.
- Taylor NE, O'Brien S, Edwards FH, Peterson ED, Bridges CR.
Relationship between race and mortality and morbidity after valve
replacement surgery. Circulation. 2005;111:1305–1312. doi:
10.1161/01.CIR.0000157737.92938.D8.
- Urbanek K, Quaini F, Tasca G, Torella D, Castaldo C, Nadal-Ginard B,
Leri A, Kajstura J, Quaini E, Anversa P. Intense myocyte formation from
cardiac stem cells in human cardiac hypertrophy. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA.
2003;100:10440–10445. doi:
10.1073/pnas.1832855100.
- Perez de Arenaza D, Lees B, Flather M, Nugara F, Husebye T, Jasinski
M, Cisowski M, Khan M, Henein M, Gaer J, Guvendik L, Bochenek A, Wos S,
Lie M, Van Nooten G, Pennell D, Pepper J. Randomized comparison of
stentless versus stented valves for aortic stenosis. Effect on left
ventricular mass. Circulation.
2005;112:2696–2702. doi:
10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.104.521161.
|