Search

Aortic stenosis is a progressive disease. The mechanisms and patterns of progression have been studied over the years using clinical assessment, cardiac catheterization, and more recently, Doppler echocardiography. Doppler is the ideal tool with which to study the progression of aortic stenosis since it provides accurate hemodynamic data non-invasively and, hence, can be repeated serially over long follow up periods. Recent Doppler echocardiographic studies have shown that the progression of aortic stenosis occurs with a wide range of individual variations, and that its rate and pattern cannot be predicted at the time of initial evaluation. However, it does follow a linear pattern, and individual trends can therefore be determined in a given patient. Symptoms lack specificity and, at a given point in time, do not predict progression. However, new and/or worsening symptoms are a mark of significant hemodynamic progression. The relationship between the cause of aortic stenosis and its progression remains imperfectly documented, and further longitudinal studies should focus on this question.

This study examined progression of aortic stenosis (AS) as assessed by Doppler echocardiography. One hundred twelve consecutive adult patients had calcific AS and underwent three examinations during a mean 25-month period (range 7 to 54 months). At the time of entry into the study, mean values for initial peak aortic velocity and ejection fraction (EF) were 2.9 +/- 0.7 m/sec and 63 +/- 10%, respectively; 52% of the patients were symptomatic. At the third examination the percentage of symptomatic patients increased to 65% (p = 0.0039 compared to baseline values), and the aortic peak velocity increased to 3.3 +/- 0.8 m/sec (p less than 0.001). Age, sex, and EF were not predictors of progression. Documented coronary artery disease (in 57 patients) did not affect progression, and neither did the aortic peak velocity at the time of entry into the study. Thirty-eight patients reported an increase in symptoms from the first to third examination, and their rate of progression was significantly different from that of the rest of the population: 0.33 +/- 0.50 m/sec/yr compared to 0.18 +/- 0.26 m/sec/yr (p less than 0.03).

The prognostic importance of coronary artery disease at the time of elective abdominal aortic aneurysmectomy was evaluated among 131 residents of Olmsted County, Minnesota who underwent elective aneurysmectomy from 1971 to 1987 and were followed up to 1988 for death and cardiac events (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, coronary bypass surgery and angioplasty). Before aneurysmectomy, 75 patients (Group 1) had no clinically recognized coronary disease, 47 patients (Group 2) had suspected or overt uncorrected coronary artery disease (history of prior myocardial infarction, angina or a positive stress test) and 9 patients (Group 3) had undergone coronary artery bypass grafting or coronary angioplasty. The 30 day operative mortality rate was 3% (2 of 75) in Group 1 and 9% (4 of 47) in Group 2 (p = 0.15). According to Kaplan-Meier analysis, estimated survival 8 years after aneurysmectomy was 59% (expected rate 68%, p = 0.29) in Group 1 versus 34% (expected rate 61%, p = 0.01) in Group 2. The cumulative incidence rate of cardiac events at 8 years was 15% and 61%, respectively, for patients without and with suspected/overt coronary artery disease (p less than 0.01). Using multivariable proportional hazards analysis, uncorrected coronary artery disease was associated with a nearly twofold increased risk of death (hazard ratio 1.79, 95% confidence interval 1.06 to 3.00) and a fourfold increased risk of cardiac events (hazard ratio 3.71, 95% confidence interval 1.79 to 7.69). These population-based data support an aggressive life-long approach to the management of coronary artery disease in patients undergoing abdominal aortic aneurysmectomy.