These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Effect of aortic valve replacement on myocardial perfusion and exercise capacity in patients with severe aortic stenosis.
    Author: Aslam S, Dattani A, Alfuhied A, Gulsin GS, Arnold JR, Steadman CD, Jerosch-Herold M, Xue H, Kellman P, McCann GP, Singh A.
    Journal: Sci Rep; 2024 Sep 14; 14(1):21522. PubMed ID: 39277605.
    Abstract:
    Aortic valve replacement (AVR) leads to reverse cardiac remodeling in patients with aortic stenosis (AS). The aim of this secondary pooled analysis was to assess the degree and determinants of changes in myocardial perfusion post AVR, and its link with exercise capacity, in patients with severe AS. A total of 68 patients underwent same-day echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging with adenosine stress pre and 6-12 months post-AVR. Of these, 50 had matched perfusion data available (age 67 ± 8 years, 86% male, aortic valve peak velocity 4.38 ± 0.63 m/s, aortic valve area index 0.45 ± 0.13cm2/m2). A subgroup of 34 patients underwent a symptom-limited cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) to assess maximal exercise capacity (peak VO2). Baseline and post-AVR parameters were compared and linear regression was used to determine associations between baseline variables and change in myocardial perfusion and exercise capacity. Following AVR, stress myocardial blood flow (MBF) increased from 1.56 ± 0.52 mL/min/g to 1.80 ± 0.62 mL/min/g (p < 0.001), with a corresponding 15% increase in myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) (2.04 ± 0.57 to 2.34 ± 0.68; p = 0.004). Increasing severity of AS, presence of late gadolinium enhancement, lower baseline stress MBF and MPR were associated with a greater improvement in MPR post-AVR. On multivariable analysis low baseline MPR was independently associated with increased MPR post-AVR. There was no significant change in peak VO2 post-AVR, but a significant increase in exercise duration. Change in MPR was associated with change in peak VO2 post AVR (r = 0.346, p = 0.045). Those with the most impaired stress MBF and MPR at baseline demonstrate the greatest improvements in these parameters following AVR and the magnitude of change in MPR correlated with improvement in peak VO2, the gold standard measure of aerobic exercise capacity.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]