PubMed · 7055884
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
B A Carabello, W Grossman, S Gunther. 1982. Ejection performance in AS.. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.65.3.639
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.
OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine factors that would predict whether a biventricular repair or Norwood procedure pathway would give the best survival in neonates with critical aortic stenosis. METHODS: Survival and risk factors were determined with parametric time-dependent event analysis for patients undergoing either the Norwood procedure or biventricular repair, and predicted optimal pathway and survival benefit were derived from multivariable linear regression. RESULTS: From 1994 to 2000, 320 neonates with critical left ventricular outflow obstruction were entered into a prospective multi-institutional study. Patients who died without intervention (n = 19) and those with primary cardiac transplantation (n = 6) were excluded. An initial intended biventricular repair pathway was indicated in 116 patients, with survival of 70% at 5 years. An initial Norwood procedure was performed in 179 patients, with survival of 60% at 5 years. Using predictions from separate multivariable hazard models for survival with each of the 2 pathways, we determined predicted optimal pathway and survival benefit for each patient. Significant independent factors associated with greater survival benefit for the Norwood procedure versus biventricular repair included younger age at entry, lower z-score of the aortic valve and left ventricular length, higher grade of endocardial fibroelastosis, absence of important tricuspid regurgitation, and larger ascending aorta. Predicted survival benefit favored the Norwood procedure in 50% of patients who had biventricular repair, and it favored biventricular repair in 20% of patients who had the Norwood procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Morphologic and functional factors can be used to predict optimal pathway and survival benefit in neonates with critical left ventricular outflow obstruction.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.