PubMed · 16631643
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Patrick McCarthy. 2006. Invited commentary.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2006.02.044
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Low-flow states are associated with adverse outcomes in aortic stenosis (AS), but the prognostic value of transvalvular flow rate (TFR) has not been consistently established across studies. This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies (published by November 14, 2025) comparing low versus normal TFR in AS. Data were collected from Kaplan-Meier curves. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Survival was assessed using pooled Kaplan-Meier curves, Cox regression, flexible parametric survival models, and restricted mean survival time (RMST) analysis. A total of 9 studies including 6,494 patients were analyzed; 2,575 (39.7%) had low TFR. At 8 years of follow-up, estimated survival was 34.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 24.7% to 47%) in the low-TFR group and 63% (95% CI 58.9% to 67.4%) in the normal-TFR group. Low TFR was associated with higher all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 1.59, 95% CI 1.45 to 1.74, p < 0.001). We observed a progressively greater hazard over time, with the hazard ratio approaching 1.9 by 8 years. At 8 years, RMST in the normal-TFR group was 7.37 years (95% CI 7.21 to 7.53 years) versus 5.07 years (95% CI 4.91 to 5.23 years) in the low-TFR group, representing a lifetime loss of 2.3 years in the low-TFR group (ΔRMST -2.30 years, 95% CI -2.53 to -2.07 years, p < 0.001). In patients with AS, low TFR is associated with significantly higher mortality and lifetime loss. These findings support TFR as a clinically meaningful marker for risk stratification in AS.
There is significant variation in practice patterns in managing congenital aortic valve stenosis. Review of medical literature reveals no significant information regarding the current practice methods in the treatment of a simple lesion such as aortic stenosis (AS). Therefore, this survey-based study was conducted in an attempt to better understand the uniformity or heterogeneity of practice in treating AS. A questionnaire was prepared to evaluate the style of management of AS. This survey was designed to assess the practice of follow-up visitations, type and frequency of investigative studies, pharmacological therapy, and exercise recommendations. Questions about therapeutic intervention included those of timing and type of intervention. Questionnaires were sent to all academic pediatric cardiology programs in the United States (48 program) and selected international programs from Europe, Asia, and Australasia (19 program). The total number of surveys sent out was 67, and the total number of respondents was 25 (37%), 15 (31%) from the United States and 9 (53%) from outside the United States. The definition of moderate AS varied among respondents. The range provided for mild AS was identified as that with a peak-to-peak pressure gradient of < 25-30 mmHg, peak instantaneous Doppler gradient of < 36-50 mmHg, or mean Doppler gradient of < 25-40 mmHg. On the other hand, severe AS was defined as that with a peak-to-peak gradient of > 50-60 mmHg, peak instantaneous Doppler gradient of > 64-80 mmHg, or mean Doppler gradient of > 45-64 mmHg. In assessing follow-up patterns, 84% of respondents recommended seeing patients with mild AS annually, the longest time of follow-up listed in the questionnaire, whereas 20% suggested follow-up every 6 months. There was no consensus among survey centers regarding follow-up of patients with moderate AS. For severe AS, 16% recommend immediate intervention, 16% arrange follow-up every 6 months, and 56 and 28% recommend follow-up in 3 and 1 month(s), respectively. In making the decision to proceed with biventricular versus univentricular repair in patients with AS in the neonatal period, many factors were considered. Ninety-two percent of respondents rely on mitral valve z score, 84% on aortic valve z score, 52% on left ventricle length, 48% on the presence of antegrade ascending aorta flow, and only 32% considered significant endocardial fibroelastosis as a factor. Rhodes score was used by 20% of respondents in decision making regarding the approach to management of this subset of AS. This study shows that there is consensus in the management of mild and severe forms of AS. As expected, disagreement is present in the definition, evaluation, and therapy of moderate aortic valve stenosis. There is a tendency for catheter intervention except in the presence of dysplastic aortic valve or moderate to severe aortic regurgitation. There is also disagreement regarding methods used to determine biventricular versus univentricular repair of a borderline hypoplastic left heart.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.