623 Short-term reversed remodeling post aortic valve intervention
Authors: Alfarih M , Alfuhied A , Lloyd G , Hughes A D , Moon J C , Mohiddin S , Captur G , Nihoyannopoulos P 
Published: January 2020

Abstract

Background
LV remodeling in AS can cause LV hypertrophy, interstitial fibrosis and reduced contractility. SAVR or TAVI are the mainstay treatment for symptomatic severe AS. Speckle tracking has the potential to detect early signs of reverse cardiac remodeling but such LV deformation data post-SAVR/TAVI is currently lacking.

Aim
To assess the early impact of LV unloading post-TAVR/SAVR using STE.

Methods
This prospective single-center study recruited 122 patients with varying degrees of AS who underwent resting transthoracic echocardiography with offline speckle-tracking. During the follow-up period, 50 patients underwent TAVI and 15 had SAVR.

Results
Patients were followed-up for a period of 4 ± 2 weeks post-intervention. Table 1 summaries the echocardiographic findings of patients pre- and post-intervention. AV peak velocity and mean pressure gradient dropped significantly immediately after intervention in both groups. AV intervention resulted in early improvements in all myocardial deformation parameters (Figure 1). There was a significant improvement in GLS and GRS irrespective of the intervention type. While SAVR led to a significant early improvement in GCS.

Conclusion
AV Intervention in severe symptomatic AS translates into an immediate and measurable improvement in LV deformation parameters. To our knowledge this is the first echocardiographic evidence of reverse remodeling early after SAVR and TAVI.
Table 1 TAVI (n = 50) SAVR (n = 15) Variables Pre Post P* value Pre Post P* value P value┼ AV vel.(m/s) 4.4 ± 0.8 2.2 ± 0.5 &lt;0.001 4.5 ± 0.8 2.2 ± 0.5 &lt;0.001 NS AV mPG (mmHg) 44.3 ± 16.2 9.7 ± 3.9 &lt;0.001 44.6 ± 19.2 9.8 ± 4.8 &lt;0.001 NS GLS (%) -10.9 ± 3.6 -13.9 ± 3.1 &lt;0.001 -13.7 ± 4.5 -17.7 ± 3.9 0.002 NS GCS (%) -29.2 ± 9.1 -32 ± 9.5 NS -28.6 ± 9.8 -34.9 ± 5.1 0.032 NS GRS (%) 42.0 ± 15.1 47.2 ± 13 0.024 34.7 ± 12.5 41.4 ± 9.9 0.04 NS EDV (ml) 87.29 ± 55.3 89.8 ± 38.6 NS 104.3 ± 25.1 83.2 ± 41.9 NS NS ESV (ml) 45.1 ± 39.4 36.6 ± 29.1 NS 42.8 ± 17.7 28.6 ± 18.6 0.03 NS SV (ml) 59.7 ± 23.6 55 ± 19.3 NS 65.5 ± 17.9 57.2 ± 22.7 NS NS SVi (ml/m2) 33.1 ± 12.7 30.4 ± 9.6 NS 34.1 ± 8.3 29.8 ± 11.1 NS NS LV mass (g) 185.7 ± 53.6 183.3 ± 48. NS 177.5 ± 48.4 169.5 ± 52.2 NS NS LVMi (g/m2) 103.6 ± 30 102.1 ± 25.9 NS 93.8 ± 29.9 89.4 ± 24.2 NS NS Biplane EF (%) 58 ± 15 62 ± 13 0.013 60 ± 9 66 ± 6 &lt;0.05 NS AV: Aortic valve; EDV: end diastolic volume; EF: ejection fraction; ESV: end systolic volume; GCS: Global circumferential strain; GLS: Global longitudinal strain; GRS: Global radial strain; LV: left ventricle; LVMi: left ventricular mass index; mPG: mean pressure gradient; SV: stroke volume; SVi: stroke volume index; Vel: velocity Data are expressed as mean ± SD. Comparisons were performed using paired Student"s t tests(parametric) or Wilcoxon paired test (non-parametric). *Pre and post intervention. ┼Comparison of pre/post-intervention measurement difference between the two intervention groups done using unpaired t-test
Abstract 623 Figure.