Comprehensive Angiography-Derived Functional Assessment of Epicardial and Microvascular Coronary Disease. Correlation With Non-invasive Myocardial Stress Imaging.

Coronary angiography (CA) is poorly correlated with non-invasive myocardial stress imaging (NSI) and myocardial ischemia is often observed in patients with unobstructed coronary arteries. Moreover, the diagnostic performance of combined epicardial and microcirculatory angiography-derived physiological assessment and its correlation with NSI remains unknown. A total of 917 coronary vessels in 319 patients who underwent both CA and NSI were included in this multicenter observational retrospective analysis. Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) and angiography-derived index of microcirculatory resistance (IMRangio) analyses were performed to estimate coronary epicardial and microcirculatory function respectively. NSI demonstrated evidence of myocardial ischemia in 76% of the cases. IMRangio (36 [22 to 50] vs 29 [21 to 41], p <0.001) was significantly higher and QFR (0.92 [0.78 to 0.99] vs 0.97 [0.91 to 0.99], p <0.001) was significantly lower in vessels subtending ischemic territories. Overall, the diagnostic accuracy of QFR was moderate (area under the curve of receiver operating characteristic [AUCROC] 0.632 [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.589 to 0.674], p <0.0001) but it was higher in patients with normal microcirculatory function (AUCROC = 0.726 [95% CI 0.669 to 0.784], p <0.0001, p Value for AUCROC comparison = 0.009). Combined QFR/IMRangio assessment provided incremental diagnostic performance compared with the evaluation of epicardial or microcirculatory districts in isolation (p Value for AUC comparison <0.0001) and it was able to identify the predominant mechanism of myocardial ischemia in 77% of the patients with positive NSI. Our study suggests the value of a combined angiography-derived assessment of epicardial and microvascular function for the definition of the predominant mechanism of myocardial ischemia in patients with suspected coronary artery disease.

When Aortic Stenosis Is Not Alone: Epidemiology, Pathophysiology, Diagnosis and Management in Mixed and Combined Valvular Disease.

Aortic stenosis (AS) may present frequently combined with other valvular diseases or mixed with aortic regurgitation, with peculiar physio-pathological and clinical implications. The hemodynamic interactions between AS in mixed or combined valve disease depend on the specific combination of valve lesions and may result in diagnostic pitfalls at echocardiography; other imaging modalities may be helpful. Indeed, diagnosis is challenging because several echocardiographic methods commonly used to assess stenosis or regurgitation have been validated only in patients with the single-valve disease. Moreover, in the developed world, patients with multiple valve diseases tend to be older and more fragile over time; also, when more than one valvular lesion needs to address the surgical risk rises together with the long-term risk of morbidity and mortality associated with multiple valve prostheses, and the likelihood and risk of reoperation. Therefore, when AS presents mixed or combined valve disease, the heart valve team must integrate various parameters into the diagnosis and management strategy, including suitability for single or multiple transcatheter valve procedures. This review aims to summarize the most critical pathophysiological mechanisms underlying AS when associated with mitral regurgitation, mitral stenosis, aortic regurgitation, and tricuspid regurgitation. We will focus on echocardiography, clinical implications, and the most important treatment strategies.

Usefulness of the Right Parasternal Echocardiographic View to Improve the Hemodynamic Assessment After Valve Replacement for Aortic Stenosis.

Right-parasternal-view (RPV) often provides the best hemodynamic assessment of the aortic-valve-stenosis by echocardiography. However, no detailed study on patients with aortic prosthesis is available. Thus, RPV usefulness is left as an anecdotical notion in this context. We aimed to define feasibility and clinical-impact of RPV before and soon-after percutaneous implantation (TAVI) or surgical (SAVR) aortic-valve-replacement (AVR) for AS. Patients with severe-AS electively referred for AVR between September-2019 and February-2020 were prospectively evaluated. Echocardiographic examinations inclusive of apical and RPV to measure aortic-peak-velocity , gradients and area (AVA) were performed the day before AVR and at hospital discharge and compared by matched-pair-analysis. Forty-seven patients (mean age 79 ± 8 years, 63% female, ejection-fraction 61 ± 6%) referred for SAVR (24 [51%]) or TAVI (23 [49%]) were enrolled. RPV was feasible in 45 patients (96%) before-AVR but in only 32 after-AVR (68%), particularly after SAVR (50%) than TAVI (87% p = 0.005). RPV remained the best acoustic window after TAVI in 75% of cases. Hemodynamic assessment of TAVI, but not SAVR, invariably benefit from RPV versus apical evaluation (aortic-peak-velocity: 2.57 ± 0.39 vs 2.23 ± 0.47 m/sec, p = 0.002; mean gradient: 15 ± 5 vs 12 ± 5 mm Hg, p = 0.01). Five (11%) patients presented severe patient-prosthesis-mismatch, 4 of which were detectable only by RPV. This pilot-experience demonstrates that RPV feasibility is slightly reduced after AVR. RPV can improve the hemodynamic assessment of the prosthetic valve versus apical view, including the detection of patient-prosthesis-mismatch. Furthermore, when RPV is the best acoustic windows in patients with severe AS, it generally remains so after-TAVI.