Effect of Regional Upper Septal Hypertrophy on Echocardiographic Assessment of Left Ventricular Mass and Remodeling in Aortic Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) is the reference method for evaluation of aortic stenosis (AS), and it is extensively used to quantitate left ventricular (LV) mass and volumes. Regional upper septal hypertrophy (USH) or septal bulge is a frequent finding in patients with AS and may lead to overestimation of LV mass when using linear measurements. The objective of this study was to compare estimates of LV mass obtained by two-dimensional transthoracic echocardiographic LV dimensions measured at different levels of the LV cavity with those obtained by cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). METHODS: One hundred six patients (mean age, 63 ± 15 years; 68% men) with AS were included in this subanalysis of the PROGRESSA study. Two-dimensional transthoracic echocardiographic measurements of LV dimensions were obtained at the basal level (BL; as recommended in guidelines), immediately below the septal bulge (BSB), and at a midventricular level (ML). Regional USH was defined as a basal interventricular septal thickness ≥ 13 mm and >1.3 times the thickness of the septal wall at the ML. Agreement between transthoracic echocardiographic and CMR measures was evaluated using Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: The distribution of AS severity was mild in 23%, moderate in 57%, and severe in 20% of patients. Regional USH was present in 28 patients (26%). In the whole cohort, two-dimensional TTE overestimated LV mass (bias: BL, +60 ± 31 g; BSB, +59 ± 32 g; ML, +54 ± 32 g; P = .02). The biplane Simpson method slightly but significantly underestimated LV end-diastolic volume (bias -10 ± 20 mL, P < .001) compared with CMR. Overestimation of LV mass was more marked in patients with USH when measuring at the BL and was significantly lower when measuring LV dimensions at the ML (P < .025 vs BL and BSB). CONCLUSIONS: Two-dimensional TTE systematically overestimated LV mass and underestimated LV volumes compared with CMR. However, the bias between TTE and CMR was less important when measuring at the ML. Measurements at the BL as suggested in guidelines should be avoided, and measurements at the ML should be preferred in patients with AS, especially in those with USH.

Drug-Induced- or Rheumatic- Valvular Heart Disease in Patients Exposed to Benfluorex?

There is a risk of misdiagnosis between benfluorex-induced VHD and acute rheumatic fever (ARF)-related VHD due to common characteristics of both etiologies. We aimed at estimating the probability for a patient exposed to benfluorex presenting with VHD to have, at the same time, a history of ARF-related VHD. Such epidemiological approach could help at reducing the risk of misdiagnosis. We used INSEE data and related literature as well as various modeling hypotheses to drive and test a formula for calculating the probability of a patient presenting with VHD and a history of benfluorex intake to have a prior history of ARF-related VHD. Different scenarios were estimated by a Markov model on the life course of people born in France between 1940 and 1960. Sensitivity analyses were performed under these scenarios. According to the different scenarios and gender, the probability that a patient born between 1940 and 1960 presenting with VHD and a history of benfluorex intake would have had a prior history of ARF-related VHD varied from 0.2% to 2.7%. The probabilities by the year of birth were as follows: 0.8%-2.7% for a patient born in 1940, < 0.5% in all scenarios for patients born after 1955, and < 0.2% in all scenarios for patients, born in 1960. Our results indicate that the burden of ARF-related VHD is low in the patient population exposed to benfluorex. The probability of ARF related VHD should not be over-estimated in the diagnostic procedure of VHD.

Cardiac magnetic resonance versus transthoracic echocardiography for the assessment and quantification of aortic regurgitation in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

BACKGROUND: The transthoracic echocardiographic (TTE) evaluation of the severity of residual aortic regurgitation (AR) following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has been controversial and lacks validation. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare TTE and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) for assessment of AR in patients undergoing TAVI with a balloon-expandable valve. METHODS: TTE and CMR exams were performed pre-TAVI in 50 patients and were repeated postprocedure in 42 patients. All imaging data were analysed in centralised core laboratories. RESULTS: The severity of native AR as determined by multiparametric TTE approach correlated well with the regurgitant volume and regurgitant fraction determined by CMR prior to TAVI (Rs=0.79 and 0.80, respectively; p<0.001 for both). However, after TAVI, the correlation between the prosthetic AR severity assessed by TTE and regurgitant volume and fraction measured by CMR was only modest (Rs=0.59 and 0.59, respectively; p<0.001 for both), with an underestimation of AR severity by TTE in 61.9% of patients (1 grade in 59.5%). The TTE jet diameter in parasternal view and the multiparametric approach (Rs=0.62 and 0.59, respectively; both with p<0.001) showed the best correlation with CMR regurgitant fraction post-TAVI. The circumferential extent of prosthetic paravalvular regurgitation showed a poor correlation with CMR regurgitant volume and fraction (Rs=0.32, p=0.084; Rs=0.36, p=0.054, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The severity of AR following TAVI with a balloon-expandable valve was underestimated by echocardiography as compared with CMR. The jet diameter, but not the circumferential extent of the leaks, and the multiparametric echocardiography integrative approach best correlated with CMR findings. These results provide important insight into the evaluation of AR severity post-TAVI.

Assessment of carotid artery stenosis before coronary artery bypass surgery. Is it always necessary?

BACKGROUND: Extracranial internal carotid artery stenosis is a risk factor for perioperative stroke in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery (CAB). Although selective and non-selective methods of preoperative carotid screening have been advocated, it remains unclear if this screening is clinically relevant. AIM: To test whether selective carotid screening is as effective as non-selective screening in detecting significant carotid disease. METHODS: The case records of patients consecutively undergoing CAB were reviewed. Patients were stratified retrospectively into high- or low-risk groups according to risk factors for significant carotid stenosis and perioperative stroke: peripheral vascular disease (PVD), carotid bruit, diabetes mellitus, age >70 years and/or history of cerebrovascular disease. Prevalence of carotid stenosis detected by ultrasonography, surgical management and perioperative stroke rates were determined in each group. RESULTS: Overall, 205 consecutive patients underwent preoperative carotid screening. The prevalence of significant carotid stenosis was 5.8%. Univariate analysis confirmed that PVD (P=0.005), carotid bruit (P=0.003) and diabetes mellitus (P=0.05) were significant risk factors for stenosis. Carotid stenosis was a risk factor for stroke (P=0.03). Prevalence of carotid stenosis was higher in the high-risk group (9.1%) than the low-risk group (1.2%) (P<0.05). All concomitant or staged carotid endarterectomies/CAB (5/205) and all patients who had perioperative strokes (5/205) were in the high-risk group (P=0.01). CONCLUSION: In our cohort, selective screening of patients aged >70 years, with carotid bruit, a history of cerebrovascular disease, diabetes mellitus or PVD would have reduced the screening load by 40%, with trivial impact on surgical management or neurological outcomes.