JACC
HOME SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES CARDIOSOURCE SEARCH HELP FEEDBACK
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Am Coll Cardiol, 1991; 17:828-833
© 1991 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Nishimura, R.
Right arrow Articles by Michela, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Nishimura, R.
Right arrow Articles by Michela, M.

Follow-up of patients with low output, low gradient hemodynamics after percutaneous balloon aortic valvuloplasty: the Mansfield Scientific Aortic Valvuloplasty Registry

RA Nishimura, DR Holmes Jr, and MA Michela

Division of Cardiovascular Diseases and Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota 55905.

Symptomatic patients with a low cardiac output and low aortic valve gradient have a poor prognosis but are at high risk for aortic valve surgery. The outcome of percutaneous balloon aortic valvuloplasty in this subgroup of patients is unclear. Therefore, 67 patients (group 1) underwent percutaneous balloon aortic valvuloplasty between December 1, 1986 and November 1, 1987 who had a low cardiac index (less than 2.5 liters/min per m2) and a low aortic valve gradient (less than or equal to 40 mm Hg) before the procedure. The results were compared with 200 patients (group 2) who had a low cardiac index but not a low aortic valve gradient (greater than 40 mm Hg) before the procedure and who had similar baseline presenting symptoms. After balloon aortic valvuloplasty, there was a greater decrease in aortic valve gradient in patients in group 2 than in patients in group 1 (mean +/- SD -33.0 +/- 16.7 mm Hg and -14.6 +/- 6.9 mm Hg, respectively; p less than 0.001) although there was no significant difference in improvement in estimated aortic valve area (0.31 +/- 0.21 and 0.31 +/- 0.22 cm2, respectively; p = NS). In-hospital mortality was 11.9% for patients in group 1 which was not significantly different from the 7.5% mortality for patients in group 2. However, the actuarial probability of survival at 12 months for patients who survived the initial hospitalization was 46% in group 1 and 64% in group 2 (p less than 0.05). Moreover, at follow-up (mean 8.8 months) 64% of surviving group 1 patients displayed clinical improvement, compared with 70% of surviving group 2 patients.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)





HOME SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES CARDIOSOURCE SEARCH HELP FEEDBACK
Copyright © 1991 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.