JOURNAL HOME CME HOME THIS MONTH PAST ISSUES ETOC COLLECTIONS
AUTHORS REVIEWERS EDITORIAL BOARD FEEDBACK RSS HELP
A&A International Anesthesia Research Society
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Anesth Analg 2009; 108:10-12
© 2009 International Anesthesia Research Society
doi: 10.1213/ane.0b013e31818db6e1
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Oxorn, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Oxorn, D.
Related Collections
Right arrow Cardiovascular
Right arrow Monitoring (Cardiac)
Right arrow Echo Rounds
Right arrow Technology

EDITORIAL

The Intraoperative Quantification of Aortic Stenosis

Donald Oxorn, MD, CM, FRCPC, FACC

From the Department Anesthesiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington.

In the industrialized world, aortic stenosis (AS) is the most common valvular heart abnormality and is primarily the result of calcific valvular disease.1 Its prevalence increases with age, reaching 2.8% in individuals older than 75 yr.2

When history and clinical examination suggest the diagnosis of AS, transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) is the confirmatory test of choice. The focus then shifts to the quantification of disease severity. Doppler echocardiography is used to calculate the transvalvular pressure gradient and, in combination with the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) diameter, allows derivation of aortic valve area (AVA) using the continuity equation.3

Valve replacement surgery is indicated when symptomatic AS is severe (valve area <1 cm2, Doppler velocity> 4 m/s).4 In asymptomatic patients with severe AS, the benefit of surgery is less clear, but may be considered in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction, those who develop symptoms during stress testing, the presence of severe valvular calcification or a rapid rate of peak velocity progression.4,5 Many patients previously rejected for surgery because of prohibitive risk are now being operated on, including octogenarians and patients with advanced degrees of left ventricular dysfunction.6,7 Percutaneous aortic valve replacement (endovascular or via the left ventricular apex)8,9 is being studied as an option for patients with prohibitive surgical risk.

In patients presenting for aortic valve replacement, intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) can yield important information on the structure of the aortic root and ascending aorta. It may also help delineate associated abnormalities, such as left ventricular hypertrophy, systolic and diastolic function, and functional characteristics of the other cardiac valves. Baseline findings can be compared to those after cardiopulmonary bypass. Occasionally, a new abnormality, such as the presence of subaortic stenosis, may lead to a change in the surgical plan.10,11

In patients presenting for other cardiac surgical procedures, such as coronary artery bypass grafting or mitral valve replacement, the presence of moderate or severe AS should generally be corrected at the time of the primary procedure.12 In rare instances, intraoperative TEE may yield de novo evidence of moderate or severe AS. Intraoperative quantification of AS in the anesthetized patient is problematic; there is no opportunity to obtain a proper history, and symptoms gleaned from the medical record may be a result of the primary indication for cardiac surgery. Initial enthusiasm for the use of planimetry for the determination of AVA by TEE13 was based on the minimal number of steps needed to arrive at a measurement; the use of planimetry has been dampened by inaccurate measurements obtained in the setting of heavily calcified or bicuspid valves.14,15

As noted above, the continuity equation is routinely used to calculate AVA; Doppler measurement of aortic valve and LVOT velocities can be obtained from the deep transgastric or the transgastric long axis imaging planes.16,17 However, difficulty may be encountered in obtaining parallel Doppler alignment and significant signal attenuation may be seen in the presence of heavily calcified aortic valves.18

The reasons for the resurgence in popularity of epicardial (EE)19 and epiaortic20 echocardiography as alternatives to TEE during cardiac surgery are the ability to use these techniques in patients with contraindications to TEE, and the recognition that image quality may be superior in certain clinical settings. Specifically, attenuation of the aortic valve Doppler signal will be less than with TEE as the flow is interrogated proximal to the calcified valve.

In this issue of the journal, Hilberath et al.21 describe the use of EE in the calculation of AVA by the continuity equation. Comparisons are made to values obtained with the continuity equation by TEE, TTE, and by the Gorlin formula22 used during cardiac catheterization.

The main strength of this paper is the important comparison that was made between EE and TTE, as the latter is the most commonly used preoperative method for measurement of AVA, and is also unencumbered by the problem of pressure recovery.23 This phenomenon is based on the fact that blood flowing in the LVOT consists of kinetic energy (velocity) and potential energy (pressure). As blood accelerates through the stenotic aortic valve, it is accompanied by a maximal decrease in pressure at the vena contracta, the narrowest diameter of the stream of flow; Doppler echocardiography measures these variables that are then used in calculating AVA. As flow reexpands beyond the valve, the kinetic energy is converted back to pressure (Law of conservation of energy), so that the catheter pullback technique (used during cardiac catherization with the Gorlin formula) measures a smaller pressure gradient and AVA.24 As AS worsens and the ascending aorta dilates, the turbulence of flow in the aortic root leads to dissipation of energy, less pressure recovery, and less "Doppler-catheter discrepancy."25,26

The investigators were able, in most patients, to acquire the requisite data. Intraobserver and interobserver variability of AVA measurements were acceptable, and the values of AVA with EE and TTE were strongly correlated. Data on the 95% limits of agreement (Bland Altman)27 were included; this technique speaks more clearly to whether the EE and TTE can be used interchangeably in the measurement of AVA.28 The mean difference between EE and TTE measurement of AVA was –0.06 cm2 with a standard deviation of 0.11, indicating that for 95% of individuals the difference between EE and TTE measurement of AVA was between 0.16 cm2 and 0.28 cm2. The wide scatter at all mean valve areas shows that the interchangeability of the two values may not be clinically acceptable.

The paper’s limitations are that, ideally, the authors should have commented a priori on what difference in AVA measurement between EE and TTE was clinically acceptable. The study was also limited by its retrospective nature and the fact only 76% of the subjects had a TTE available for comparison. A prospective study comparing matched EE and TTE is in order. That being said, EE can help quantify disease severity in the instance of a "surprise diagnosis" of AS during cardiac surgery, but adequate preoperative workup should keep this occurrence to a minimum.29


   Footnotes
 
Accepted for publication August 28, 2008.

Address for correspondence and reprint requests to Donald Oxorn, MD, CM, FRCPC, FACC, University of Washington, Box 356540, Seattle, WA 98195-6540. Address e-mail to oxorn{at}u.washington.edu.


   REFERENCES
Top
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Iung B. Management of the elderly patient with aortic stenosis. Heart 2008;94:519–24[Free Full Text]
  2. Nkomo VT, Gardin JM, Skelton TN, Gottdiener JS, Scott CG, Enriquez-Sarano M. Burden of valvular heart diseases: a population-based study. Lancet 2006;368:1005–11[Medline]
  3. Otto CM, Pearlman AS, Comess KA, Reamer RP, Janko CL, Huntsman LL. Determination of the stenotic aortic valve area in adults using Doppler echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 1986;7:509–17[Abstract]
  4. Otto CM. Valvular aortic stenosis: disease severity and timing of intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;47:2141–51[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Vahanian A, Baumgartner H, Bax J, Butchart E, Dion R, Filippatos G, Flachskampf F, Hall R, Iung B, Kasprzak J, Nataf P, Tornos P, Torracca L, Wenink A. Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease: the Task Force on the Management of Valvular Heart Disease of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 2007;28:230–68[Free Full Text]
  6. de Vincentiis C, Kunkl AB, Trimarchi S, Gagliardotto P, Frigiola A, Menicanti L, Di Donato M. Aortic valve replacement in octogenarians: is biologic valve the unique solution? Ann Thorac Surg 2008;85:1296–301[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Levy F, Laurent M, Monin JL, Maillet JM, Pasquet A, Le Tourneau T, Petit-Eisenmann H, Gori M, Jobic Y, Bauer F, Chauvel C, Leguerrier A, Tribouilloy C. Aortic valve replacement for low-flow/low-gradient aortic stenosis operative risk stratification and long-term outcome: a European multicenter study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;51:1466–72[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Lichtenstein SV, Cheung A, Ye J, Thompson CR, Carere RG, Pasupati S, Webb JG. Transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation in humans: initial clinical experience. Circulation 2006;114:591–6[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Webb JG, Pasupati S, Humphries K, Thompson C, Altwegg L, Moss R, Sinhal A, Carere RG, Munt B, Ricci D, Ye J, Cheung A, Lichtenstein SV. Percutaneous transarterial aortic valve replacement in selected high-risk patients with aortic stenosis. Circulation 2007;116:755–63[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Nowrangi SK, Connolly HM, Freeman WK, Click RL. Impact of intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography among patients undergoing aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2001;14:863–6[Web of Science][Medline]
  11. Qizilbash B, Couture P, Denault A. Impact of perioperative transesophageal echocardiography in aortic valve replacement. Semin Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2007;11:288–300[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Kanu C, de Leon AC Jr, Faxon DP, Freed MD, Gaasch WH, Lytle BW, Nishimura RA, O’Gara PT, O’Rourke RA, Otto CM, Shah PM, Shanewise JS, Smith SC Jr, Jacobs AK, Adams CD, Anderson JL, Antman EM, Faxon DP, Fuster V, Halperin JL, Hiratzka LF, Hunt SA, Lytle BW, Nishimura R, Page RL, Riegel B. ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the Am College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (writing committee to revise the 1998 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease): developed in collaboration with the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists: endorsed by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Circulation 2006;114:e84–e231[Free Full Text]
  13. Hoffmann R, Flachskampf FA, Hanrath P. Planimetry of orifice area in aortic stenosis using multiplane transesophageal echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 1993;22:529–34[Abstract]
  14. Pouleur AC, le Polain de Waroux JB, Pasquet A, Vancraeynest D, Vanoverschelde JL, Gerber BL. Planimetric and continuity equation assessment of aortic valve area: head to head comparison between cardiac magnetic resonance and echocardiography. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007;26:1436–43[Web of Science][Medline]
  15. Donal E, Novaro GM, Deserrano D, Popovic ZB, Greenberg NL, Richards KE, Thomas JD, Garcia MJ. Planimetric assessment of anatomic valve area overestimates effective orifice area in bicuspid aortic stenosis. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2005;18:1392–8[Web of Science][Medline]
  16. Maslow AD, Mashikian J, Haering JM, Heindel S, Douglas P, Levine R. Transesophageal echocardiographic evaluation of native aortic valve area: utility of the double-envelope technique. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2001;15:293–9[Web of Science][Medline]
  17. Blumberg FC, Pfeifer M, Holmer SR, Kromer EP, Riegger GA, Elsner D. Quantification of aortic stenosis in mechanically ventilated patients using multiplane transesophageal Doppler echocardiography. Chest 1998;114:94–7[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Cormier B, Iung B, Porte JM, Barbant S, Vahanian A. Value of multiplane transesophageal echocardiography in determining aortic valve area in aortic stenosis. Am J Cardiol 1996;77:882–5[Web of Science][Medline]
  19. Reeves ST, Glas KE, Eltzschig H, Mathew JP, Rubenson DS, Hartman GS, Shernan SK. For the Council for Intraoperative Echocardiography of the American Society of Echocardiography. Guidelines for Performing a Comprehensive Epicardial Echocardiography Examination: recommendations of the American Society of Echocardiography and the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists. Anesth Analg 2007;105:22–8[Free Full Text]
  20. Glas KE, Swaminathan M, Reeves ST, Shanewise JS, Rubenson D, Smith PK, Mathew JP, Shernan SK, Council for Intraoperative Echocardiography of the American Society of Echocardiography. Guidelines for the performance of a comprehensive intraoperative epiaortic ultrasonographic examination: recommendations of the American Society of Echocardiography and the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists; Endorsed by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Anesth Analg 2008;106:1376–84[Free Full Text]
  21. Hilberath JN, Shernan SK, Scott Segal S, Smith B MD, Eltzschig HK. The feasibility of epicardial echocardiography for measuring aortic valve area by the continuity equation. Anesth Analg 2009;108:17–22[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Dangas G, Gorlin R. Changing concepts in the determination of valvular stenosis. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 1997;40:55–64[Web of Science][Medline]
  23. Popescu WM, Prokop E, Elefteriades JA, Kett K, Barash PG. Phantom aortic valve pressure gradient: discrepancies between cardiac catheterization and Doppler echocardiography. Anesth Analg 2005;100:1259–62, table of contents[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Dumesnil JG, Pibarot P, Akins C. New approaches to quantifying aortic stenosis severity. Curr Cardiol Rep 2008;10:91–7[Medline]
  25. Levine RA, Schwammenthal E. Stenosis is in the eye of the observer: impact of pressure recovery on assessing aortic valve area. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;41:443–5[Free Full Text]
  26. Schobel WA, Voelker W, Haase KK, Karsch KR. Extent, determinants and clinical importance of pressure recovery in patients with aortic valve stenosis. Eur Heart J 1999;20:1355–63[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 1999;8:135–60[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Bland JM, Altman DG. Applying the right statistics: analyses of measurement studies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003;22:85–93[Web of Science][Medline]
  29. Otto CM. Aortic stenosis–listen to the patient, look at the valve. N Engl J Med 2000;343:652–4[Free Full Text]




This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Oxorn, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Oxorn, D.
Related Collections
Right arrow Cardiovascular
Right arrow Monitoring (Cardiac)
Right arrow Echo Rounds
Right arrow Technology

Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins Anesthesia & Analgesia® is published for the International Anesthesia Research Society® by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press®. Copyright 2009 by the International Anesthesia Research Society. Online ISSN: 1526-7598   Print ISSN: 0003-2999 HighWire Press