
==== Front
Struct Heart
Struct Heart
Structural Heart
2474-8706
2474-8714
Elsevier

S2474-8706(23)00230-0
10.1016/j.shj.2023.100279
100279
Review Article
Moderate Aortic Stenosis—Advanced Imaging, Risk Assessment, and Treatment Strategies
Adrichem Rik MD a
van den Dorpel Mark M.P. MD a
Hirsch Alexander MD, PhD ab
Geleijnse Marcel L. MD, PhD a
Budde Ricardo P.J. MD, PhD ab
Van Mieghem Nicolas M. MD, PhD n.vanmieghem@erasmusmc.nl
a∗
a Department of Cardiology, Thoraxcenter, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
b Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
∗ Address correspondence to: Nicolas M. Van Mieghem, MD, PhD, Department of Interventional Cardiology, Thoraxcenter, Erasmus University Medical Center, Dr Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. n.vanmieghem@erasmusmc.nl
01 2 2024
9 2024
01 2 2024
8 5 1002791 9 2023
2 12 2023
21 12 2023
© 2024 The Authors
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Moderate aortic stenosis is increasingly recognized as a disease entity with poor prognosis. Diagnosis of moderate aortic stenosis may be complemented by laboratory tests and advanced imaging techniques focused at detecting signs of cardiac damage such as increase of cardiac enzymes (N-terminal pro-B-type Natriuretic Peptide, troponin), left ventricular remodeling (hypertrophy, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction), or myocardial fibrosis. Therapy should include guideline-directed optimal medical therapy for heart failure. Patients with signs of cardiac damage may benefit from early intervention, which is the focus of several ongoing randomized controlled trials. As yet, no evidence-based therapy exists to halt the progression of aortic valve calcification.

Keywords

Advanced imaging techniques
Aortic valve interventions
Cardiac damage
Moderate aortic stenosis
Risk assessment
Abbreviations

AVA Aortic valve area

AVC Aortic valve calcification

AS Aortic stenosis

AU Arbitrary units

BNP B-type natriuretic peptide

CMR Cardiac magnetic resonance

FOURIER Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research with PCSK-9 Inhibition in Subjects with Elevated Risk trial

HFrEF Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

HR Hazard ratio

LV Left ventricle

LVEF Left ventricular ejection fraction

NT-pro-BNP N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide

PCSK-9 Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9

PROGRESS Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial to Assess the Management of Moderate Aortic Stenosis by Clinical Surveillance or Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement trial

SEAS Simvastatin and Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis trial

SGLT2 Sodium-glucose transporter protein 2

TAVR Transcatheter aortic valve replacement

TAVR UNLOAD Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement to UNload the Left Ventricle in Patients With ADvanced Heart Failure trial

TTE transthoracic echocardiography
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most common valvular heart disease in the adult population and its prevalence is expected to rise because of further aging.1,2 Severe AS affects quality of life and is associated with an impaired prognosis. Symptomatic severe AS is an undisputed indication for aortic valve replacement therapy. Less is known about the clinical relevance of moderate AS.

Observational studies revealed that also moderate AS may shorten life expectancy.3,4 This suggests that aortic valve replacement may possibly improve symptoms and prognosis in selected patients with moderate AS. However, correct identification of patients who may benefit most from intervention is challenging, as moderate AS may have a heterogeneous clinical presentation and progression to severe AS is variable. Furthermore, impaired left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and impaired flow patterns may obscure echocardiographic Doppler measurements and heart failure symptoms may be attributed to the reduced cardiac function rather than to the AS.

Herein, we focus on diagnostic challenges, advanced imaging techniques as well as current and novel treatment strategies for patients with moderate AS.

Diagnosis of Moderate AS

Echocardiography remains the key diagnostic modality in the evaluation of AS. Easily determinable echocardiographic parameters such as the peak aortic jet velocity, mean pressure gradient (as determined by the simplified Bernoulli equation), and the aortic valve area (AVA; as calculated with the continuity equation) provide valuable prognostic insights.5 By convention, moderate AS is defined by a peak aortic valve velocity of 3.0 to 4.0 m/s, mean pressure gradient of 20 to 40 mmHg and AVA of 1.0 to 1.5 cm2.6,7 Nevertheless, echocardiographic measurement errors may lead to underestimation of aortic valve gradients, because of 1) nonparallel echo beam orientation in relation to flow-direction, 2) underutilization of echo windows (in particular, right-parasternal and suprasternal views), and 3) underutilization of optimal probes (pencil probe rather than large 3D print-plate). Also, the AVA may be overestimated as a consequence of miscalculation because of LVOT velocity-time integrals measured too close to the aortic valve or overtracing of the Doppler profile. Finally, planimetric measurements of AVA in bicuspid AS are often overestimated because of the dome-shaped orifice and measurement at the wrong level.8

Moreover, the above mentioned criteria for moderate AS only hold true in the presence of normal transvalvular flow patterns (i.e., transvalvular flow rate ≥250 mL/s and/or indexed stroke volume >35 mL/m2). Low transvalvular flow may generate discordant findings between gradients and AVA, which complicates the overall interpretation of AS severity even further.9 Various methods have emerged to resolve inconsistencies with discordant echocardiography findings.

With dobutamine stress echocardiography (Figure 1a), the aim is to rectify impaired flow and enhance interpretation of discordant echo Doppler findings through the positive inotropic effects of dobutamine. Calculated AVA at peak stress levels (usually at 20 μg dobutamine per kg body weight per minute) separates pseudo-severe or moderate AS (AVA ≥1.0 cm2) from true severe AS (AVA remains <1.0 cm2). Studies confirmed that patients with true severe AS have a worse prognosis than patients with pseudo-severe/moderate AS and benefit from aortic valve replacement.10 Another modified echocardiography-derived method to solve discordant Doppler findings is to measure the projected AVA assuming that the flow rate would be corrected to 250 mL/s. This projected AVA improved diagnostic accuracy in the Truly or Pseudo-Severe Aortic Stenosis study.11,12 A projected AVA ≤1.2 cm2 seemed associated with more impaired survival.13Figure 1 Imaging modalities in the diagnosis and evaluation of moderate aortic stenosis and associated left ventricular changes. (a) dobutamine stress echocardiography. Low peak aortic valve velocity and mean pressure gradient at rest in combination with aortic valve area <1.0 cm2 indicate low-flow low-gradient aortic stenosis. Dobutamine stress increases aortic valve area >1.0 cm2, indicating pseudo-severe, or moderate, aortic stenosis. (b) Aortic valve calcification in a male patient showing Agatston score of 1857 arbitrary units, corresponding to moderate aortic stenosis. (c) invasive pressure measurements showing measurements fitting with moderate aortic stenosis. (d.1) left: systolic cine image in 3-chamber view; and right: short axis aortic valve with aortic valve area measurement at level of red line in left. (d.2) left: late gadolinium enhancement image of the basal short axis with mid-wal enhancement inferolateral (red arrow). Middle: short axis T1 map. Right: extracellular volume map at the level of the papillary muscles with normal native T1 and extracellular volume in the septum and increased T1 and extracellular volume in the area with late gadolinium enhancement.

Abbreviations: AS, aortic stenosis; AU, Agatston units; AVA, aortic valve area.

Importantly, discordance in gradient measurements may not be caused solely by low transvalvular flow. Echocardiography as a modality holds intrinsic limitations when compared to invasive transvalvular gradient measurement (Figure 1b). A key difference is that invasive measurements register actual pressures, while echocardiography relies on measured velocities and mathematical conversions using the simplified Bernoulli equation. Recent studies describe a discordance between echocardiography and left-heart catheterization when it comes to determination of aortic valve gradients.14,15 Although this discordance is most pronounced after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), it is also observed in native aortic valve stenosis.14,15 Several explanations have been proposed to interpret the observed discrepancies. First, echocardiography relies on the use of the simplified Bernoulli equation, in which a pressure gradient is calculated from a measured velocity. The Bernoulli equation is dependent on several assumptions, which do not always hold true in the case of AS. For instance, this formula was designed for use in the presence of laminar flow with a single level of stenosis, while severe aortic valve stenosis may contain multiple levels of stenosis including aortic root calcification. Additionally, the formula does not account for the contribution of viscous forces, proximal left ventricle (LV) velocity and importantly, pressure recovery.16

Pressure recovery refers to the phenomenon that blood flow, after reaching its maximum velocity at the narrowest point (vena contracta), slows down in the ascending aorta.17,18 The velocity loss occurs when kinetic energy is converted back into potential energy (e.g. blood pressure).19, 20, 21 Since the invasive pressure measurement takes place above the valve (where pressure recovery has already occurred), it will be lower than the echo-derived measurement (where the cursor is manually placed over the vena contracta to measure the maximum velocity). Each of the aforementioned factors may contribute to the discordance between modalities, but it has not been established to what extent each factor contributes individually.

Nevertheless, despite aforementioned limitations in gradient determination, the value of echocardiography is indispensable for AS diagnosis because of several advantages. Echocardiography is noninvasive, readily available, has limited costs, and provides additional information which are also of importance in the workup of AS, such as insights in LVEF and cardiac remodeling.

Computed tomography can be used to quantify the amount of aortic valve calcification (AVC). Computed tomography–derived AVC (Figure 1c) correlated well with calcium volume as assessed by surgical inspection.22 There was good correlation between AVC and AS severity as assessed by transthoracic echocardiography. An AVC threshold of >2000 arbitrary units for men and >1200 arbitrary units for women was associated with a high likelihood of severe AS.9,22, 23, 24 Importantly, these thresholds were validated in AS patients with concordant Doppler findings and have not been properly validated in patients with depressed LV systolic function, low transvalvular flow and discordant Doppler findings. Nevertheless, high AVC seems associated with impaired survival and major cardiac events.25 At this point, AVC cannot replace dobutamine stress echocardiography to resolve discordant echocardiography Doppler findings but may be integrated in a multimodality approach to help ascertain AS severity in selected patients.

Transoesophageal echocardiography may provide a superior view for planimetric AVA measurement in the setting of poor acoustic windows with transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), for example in the presence of obesity, chest deformity, emphysema, or breast implants. Also computed tomography and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR)26 are used for direct planimetric measurement of aortic valve orifice.27, 28, 29 However, AVA measured by computed tomography is generally larger and it has been suggested to raise cutoff thresholds for this modality.28 Additionally, a hybrid method can be utilized that includes LV outflow tract area measurement by computed tomography in combination with echocardiographic velocities in the simplified Bernoulli equation.27,28 The clinical value of this hybrid approach is unclear, and higher cutoff values have been proposed (i.e. AVA <1.2 for severe AS).28,30

CMR can estimate transvalvular velocities by using velocity-encoded techniques.26 However, CMR has lower temporal and spatial resolution than TTE and tends to underestimate peak velocities. For both TTE and CMR it can be difficult to get perpendicular to the actual flow, which will result in underestimation of the maximum velocity. Four-dimensional flow CMR (time-resolved 3D phase-contrast CMR) may enhance accuracy of flow measurements and compare better with TTE.26,31, 32, 33

Moderate AS Risk Assessment

Reduced LVEF

Multiple studies have linked moderate AS to poor clinical outcome.3,34 This may be amplified in patients with impaired LVEF. Low LVEF is associated with reduced survival and concomitant moderate AS may further increase the risk of death and hospitalizations (hazard ratio (HR) 2.98; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.08 to 4.31).35 Observational data suggest that within a 4-year period, nearly half of patients with impaired LVEF and moderate AS will experience heart failure hospitalization or death.34 Earlier aortic valve replacement may improve outcomes.35 Another study found similar rates of all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization in patients with low LVEF and moderate or severe AS (62.0% vs. 62.7% during a follow-up of 3.1 years, p = 0.68).36

Afterload mismatch in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is inflated by concomitant moderate AS. The valvulo-arterial impedance reflects the total afterload of the ventricle and consists of an arterial and valvular component. The latter is enhanced with moderate AS. The mainstay of guideline directed heart failure medical therapy revolves around afterload reduction (i.e., renin-angiotensin-system inhibitors, vasodilators, aldosterone antagonists, beta blockers and diuretics). High valvulo-arterial impedance is associated with increased mortality regardless of which component (i.e., the arterial or the valvular) dominates.37,38 Increased arterial stiffness and irreversible loss in compliance may make HFrEF patients less susceptible to vasodilators and other afterload reducing agents. In patients with concomitant moderate AS, the valvular component may become a reasonable treatment target for minimally invasive TAVR.37,38 This is the rationale of the TAVR to UNload the Left Ventricle in Patients With ADvanced Heart Failure trial (TAVR UNLOAD; clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02661451).39

Other Signs of Cardiac Damage Irrespective of LVEF

Recent studies suggested detrimental effects of moderate AS in selected patients who exhibit any degree of cardiac damage. Cardiac damage can manifest itself by morphologic changes (e.g. LV hypertrophy), diastolic dysfunction, atrial fibrillation, elevated biomarkers (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-pro-BNP), B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), troponin), mitral regurgitation, dilated left atrium and eventually also right heart changes that include tricuspid regurgitation and right ventricular dilation and dysfunction.40, 41, 42 In a large registry of 1931 patients with moderate AS, LV geometry was normal in only one-fifth.40 Concentric hypertrophy was the most common morphological change and appeared in approximately one-third of patients. Eccentric hypertrophy was found in 22% of patients and increased relative wall thickness with normal LV mass in 24%. Diastolic dysfunction affected 43% to 54% of patients with moderate AS.43,44 Additionally, speckle tracking global longitudinal strain studies have shown subclinical myocardial dysfunction in patients with AS even before LV systolic dysfunction occurs.45 Impaired strain is most evident with severe AS, but also features in moderate and even mild AS.45

These echocardiographic parameters have been consistently linked to worse survival outcomes.40,41,43,44,46, 47, 48 Particularly an elevated E/e’ ratio and impaired LV global longitudinal strain seem independently associated with increased mortality regardless of symptoms or impaired LV function.48 Right heart involvement characterized by 1) pulmonary artery pressure >60 mmHg, 2) moderate or more than moderate tricuspid regurgitation, or 3) tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion <16 mm are indicative for poor clinical outcome with >60% 5-year incidence of all-cause mortality, stroke, heart failure hospitalization, or myocardial infarction.42

Inappropriate loading conditions such as AS may ignite the process of myocardial fibrosis that can be detected by CMR (Figure 1d).49 Two phenotypes of fibrosis may be recognized. Reactive interstitial fibrosis has a diffuse pattern with concomitant extracellular space expansion that emerges early in the disease progress and is potentially reversible.50,51 Native T1 values and extracellular volume fractions are CMR parameters that may accompany this type of fibrosis and have been shown to correlate with AS severity.52, 53, 54, 55 Extracellular volume fraction indexed to body surface area has shown good correlation to degree of fibrosis in patients across the AS severity spectrum.52

Replacement fibrosis in the context of moderate AS is often characterized by irreversible midwall late gadolinium enhancement on CMR, and signals more advanced disease and is more frequent with moderate (31%) and severe AS (32%) than with mild AS (5.4%).51,52

The type of LV fibrosis pattern may have prognostic implications in the context of moderate and severe AS.52,56, 57, 58 In patients with severe AS, extracellular volume fraction appeared a stronger predictor for mortality than LVEF.54 Replacement fibrosis was a strong predictor for mortality regardless of aortic valve intervention or stage of AS (i.e., moderate or severe AS).59 Interestingly, in patients with AS and replacement fibrosis or midwall late gadolinium enhancement, aortic valve intervention during follow-up improved survival.56

Various biomarkers are linked to impaired outcome in the context of AS.55,60 NT-pro-BNP is a biomarker of LV wall stress and correlates with onset and severity of symptoms and perioperative and long-term mortality.60,61 In a retrospective study of 261 patients with moderate AS, elevated NT-pro-BNP was an independent predictor for mortality.62 Troponin correlated with LV mass index (r = 0.50, p < 0.001), peak aortic jet velocity (r = -0.32, p < 0.001) and midwall late gadolinium enhancement pattern fibrosis.55 Also, elevated troponin levels were an independent predictor for mortality and need for aortic valve replacement.55

Two randomized controlled trials are investigating TAVR in patients with moderate AS and cardiac damage independent of LVEF: the Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial to Assess the Management of Moderate Aortic Stenosis by Clinical Surveillance or Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (PROGRESS; clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT04889872) and the Evolut EXPAND TAVR II (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT05149755) trials (Figure 2).Figure 2 Ongoing trials on transcatheter aortic valve replacement for moderate aortic stenosis.

Abbreviations: AS, aortic stenosis; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; RCT, randomized controlled trial; TAVR, transcatheter aortic valve replacement; TAVR UNLOAD, Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement to UNload the Left Ventricle in Patients With ADvanced Heart Failure trial.

Treatment of Moderate AS

Current cardiology society guidelines do not recommend aortic valve replacement for moderate AS, except in the context of concomitant valve or coronary surgery.6,7

Various strategies have been studied to affect the progression from moderate to severe AS. For now, clinical care of moderate AS revolves around guideline directed treatment of heart failure, hypertension, and coronary artery disease.

Heart Failure Therapy

Guideline-derived optimal medical therapy for heart failure should also be applied to patients with HFrEF and moderate AS. Betablockers, renin-angiotensin-system inhibitors (preferably with neprilysin inhibition), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists and sodium-glucose transport protein 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors need to be titrated to maximally tolerated doses.63,64 Furthermore, adequate rate or rhythm control in the presence of atrial fibrillation and cardiac resynchronization therapy with left bundle branch block are strongly recommended. The role for complete revascularization of concomitant coronary artery disease seems clinically sound but was recently challenged by a randomized trial.65 Diuretics may be required to correct congestion. Apart from these general heart failure considerations, no dedicated randomized controlled trials have been concluded to help formulate strong guideline recommendations for HFrEF and moderate AS.

Recent trials revealed consistent clinical benefits with SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction or heart failure with moderate-reduced ejection fraction.66,67 SGLT2 inhibitors seem an intriguing strategy for patients with moderate AS and preserved LVEF. However, patients with AS were excluded from the landmark SGLT2 inhibitor trials. Of note, the dapagliflozin after transcatheter aortic valve implantation trial (DapaTAVI; clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT04696185)68 will investigate the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin in patients after successful TAVR.

Strategies to Affect AS Progression

Statins were tested to affect AS progression in patients with moderate AS.69, 70, 71 In the Simvastatin and Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis (SEAS) study,70 1873 patients with asymptomatic mild-to-moderate AS were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive 40 mg simvastatin plus 10 mg ezetimibe or placebo. There was no difference in the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, aortic valve replacement, nonfatal myocardial infarction, hospitalization for unstable angina pectoris, heart failure, coronary artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention, and nonhemorrhagic stroke (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.12, p = 0.59) and AS progression was similar (0.61 ± 0.59 m/s vs 0.62 ± 0.61 m/s for treatment group and placebo respectively; p = 0.83).

More recently, elevated levels of lipoprotein (a) and oxidized phospolipids have been linked to disease progression of calcific AS and a connection has been found with a gene variant coding for lipoprotein (a) expression.72,73 Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibiting drugs such as alirocumab and evolocumab can achieve 15% to 30% reductions in lipoprotein(a) levels74, 75, 76 and as such, may offer an alternative treatment strategy in the medical monitoring of moderate AS patients. An exploratory analysis of the ‘Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research with proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 Inhibition in Subjects with Elevated Risk’ (FOURIER) trial,75 which randomized 27,564 patients at increased risk of cardiovascular events already taking statin therapy to evolocumab or placebo, found a numerically lower incidence of AS events (defined as new or worsening AS or aortic valve replacement) in the treatment arm compared to the placebo arm (0.27% [95% CI: 0.17% to 0.44%] vs 0.41% [95% CI: 0.28% to 0.59%]) coupled with a 26.9% reduction in lipoprotein (a) levels.77

Aortic Valve Intervention

So far, no randomized controlled trials have established the value of surgical aortic valve replacement or TAVR in patients with moderate AS. TAVR UNLOAD completed the enrollment of 178 patients in February 2023 and primary outcome data should be available in Q3 2024. PROGRESS is expected to wrap up its enrollment in December 2023 with outcome data expected in 2026. Patient inclusion in the EXPAND TAVR II pivotal trial is ongoing.

Nonetheless, observational studies have been published that hinted towards clinical benefits and improved 5-year survival with aortic valve replacement in patients with moderate AS who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (HR 0.29, 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.44 when AS is determined by mean gradient; HR 0.37, 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.67 when AS is determined by AVA).78

A retrospective propensity matched analysis of HFrEF patients with or without moderate AS reported worse outcome in the presence of moderate AS and clinical benefits of aortic valve replacement (HR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.65 to 0.98, p = 0.04).35 In patients with preserved LVEF and moderate AS, aortic valve replacement was also associated with improved survival.4

An invasive left ventricular pressure volume relationship study demonstrated immediate mechanical unloading and segmental resynchronization following (transcatheter) aortic valve replacement in a patient with HFrEF and moderate AS, which underpins the pathophysiological rationale for aortic valve replacement in the setting of moderate AS (Figure 3).79 Moreover, a recent propensity matched study analysis suggested superiority in terms of 2-year survival with TAVR over watchful waiting in patients with pseudo-severe (moderate) AS (overall: 65.4% vs 48.8%, p = 0.0002; cardiovascular 80.4% vs 58.5%, p < 0.0001).80Figure 3 Pressure-volume analysis before and after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in moderate aortic stenosis. (Panel a and b) illustrating moderate aortic stenosis with aortic valve area of 1.1 cm2. (Panel c and d) uneventful transcatheter aortic valve replacement. (Panel e) left-shift of pressure-volume loops with decrease in end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes (unloading) and improved contractility.

Abbreviations: Ea, arterial elastance; EDP, end-diastolic pressure; EDPVR, end-diastolic pressure-volume relationship; EDV, end-diastolic volume; Ees, end-systolic elastance; ESP, end-systolic pressure; ESPVR, end-systolic pressure-volume relationship; ESV, end-systolic volume; mPAP, mean pulmonary artery pressure; mPCWP, mean pulmonary capillary wedge pressure; PVA, pressure-volume area; V0, volume at zero mmHg; V30, volume at 30mmHg diastolic pressure; SV, stroke volume; SW, stroke work; TAVR, transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

This figure was previously published in Bastos et al. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, 12(7); 684-6 (2019) and reused with permission. Copyright Elsevier.

Conclusions

A growing body of clinical evidence links moderate AS to poor clinical outcome. Integrated multimodality imaging may be required to establish the diagnosis of moderate AS. Risk stratification models are emerging to identify moderate AS patients who may benefit from aortic valve replacement. The impact of TAVR for moderate AS is currently tested in randomized controlled trials.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Disclosure Statement

Nicolas M. Van Mieghem has received grant support/research contracts from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Daiichy Sankyo, Astra Zeneca and PulseCath BV and has received consulting/speaker fees from Abbot Vascular, Boston Scientific Corporation, Medtronic, Daiichy Sankyo, PulseCath BV, JenaValve, and Amgen. Ricardo P.J. Budde has received institutional support and speaker fees from Siemens and is member of the executive board of the European Society of Cardiovascular Radiology. Alexander Hirsch has received a research grant and consultancy fees from GE Healthcare and speaker fees from GE Healthcare and Bayer. He is also a member of the medical advisory board of Medis Medical Imaging Systems. All other authors declare to have no conflicts of interest.

Contact information: Nicolas M. Van Mieghem, MD, PhD, Department of interventional cardiology, Thoraxcenter, Erasmus University Medical Center, Dr Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
==== Refs
References

1 Iung B. Delgado V. Rosenhek R. Contemporary presentation and management of valvular heart disease: the EURObservational research programme valvular heart disease II survey Circulation 140 2019 1156 1169 31510787
2 Yadgir S. Johnson C.O. Aboyans V. Global, regional, and national burden of calcific aortic valve and degenerative mitral valve diseases, 1990-2017 Circulation 141 2020 1670 1680 32223336
3 Strange G. Stewart S. Celermajer D. Poor long-term survival in patients with moderate aortic stenosis J Am Coll Cardiol 74 2019 1851 1863 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.08.004 31491546
4 Delesalle G. Bohbot Y. Rusinaru D. Characteristics and prognosis of patients with moderate aortic stenosis and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction J Am Heart Assoc 8 2019 e011036 10.1161/jaha.118.011036
5 Baumgartner H. Hung J. Bermejo J. Recommendations on the echocardiographic assessment of aortic valve stenosis: a focused update from the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging and the American Society of Echocardiography J Am Soc Echocardiogr 30 2017 372 392 10.1016/j.echo.2017.02.009 28385280
6 Vahanian A. Beyersdorf F. Praz F. 2021 ESC/EACTS guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease: developed by the task force for the management of valvular heart disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) Eur Heart J 43 2021 561 632 10.1093/eurheartj/ehab395
7 Otto C.M. Nishimura R.A. Bonow R.O. 2020 ACC/AHA guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines J Am Coll Cardiol 77 2021 e25 e197 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.11.018 33342586
8 Dumesnil J.G. Pibarot P. Carabello B. Paradoxical low flow and/or low gradient severe aortic stenosis despite preserved left ventricular ejection fraction: implications for diagnosis and treatment Eur Heart J 31 2010 281 289 10.1093/eurheartj/ehp361 19737801
9 Clavel M.A. Messika-Zeitoun D. Pibarot P. The complex nature of discordant severe calcified aortic valve disease grading: new insights from combined Doppler echocardiographic and computed tomographic study J Am Coll Cardiol 62 2013 2329 2338 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.08.1621 24076528
10 Fougères E. Tribouilloy C. Monchi M. Outcomes of pseudo-severe aortic stenosis under conservative treatment Eur Heart J 33 2012 2426 2433 22733832
11 Blais C. Burwash I.G. Mundigler G. Projected valve area at normal flow rate improves the assessment of stenosis severity in patients with low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis: the multicenter TOPAS (Truly or Pseudo-Severe Aortic Stenosis) study Circulation 113 2006 711 721 16461844
12 Vamvakidou A. Annabi M.S. Pibarot P. Clinical value of stress transaortic flow rate during dobutamine echocardiography in reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, low-gradient aortic stenosis: a multicenter study Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 14 2021 e012809
13 Clavel M.A. Fuchs C. Burwash I.G. Predictors of outcomes in low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis Circulation 118 2008 S234 S242 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.757427 18824760
14 Abbas A.E. Mando R. Hanzel G. Hemodynamic principles of prosthetic aortic valve evaluation in the transcatheter aortic valve replacement era Echocardiography 37 2020 738 757 32362021
15 Abbas A.E. Mando R. Hanzel G. Invasive versus echocardiographic evaluation of transvalvular gradients immediately post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement Circ Cardiovasc Interv 12 2019 e007973
16 Firstenberg M.S. Abel E.E. Papadimos T.J. Tripathi R.S. Nonconvective forces: a critical and often ignored component in the echocardiographic assessment of transvalvular pressure gradients Cardiol Res Pract 2012 2012 383217
17 Stanová V. Rieu R. Côté N. In vitro Doppler versus catheter transvalvular pressure gradients in balloon-expandable versus self-expanding transcatheter aortic valves Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 99 2022 201 210 34632691
18 Levine R.A. Jimoh A. Cape E.G. Pressure recovery distal to a stenosis: potential cause of gradient "overestimation" by Doppler echocardiography J Am Coll Cardiol 13 1989 706 715 2918177
19 Niederberger J. Schima H. Maurer G. Baumgartner H. Importance of pressure recovery for the assessment of aortic stenosis by Doppler ultrasound. Role of aortic size, aortic valve area, and direction of the stenotic jet in vitro Circulation 94 1996 1934 1940 8873671
20 Laskey W.K. Kussmaul W.G. Pressure recovery in aortic valve stenosis Circulation 89 1994 116 121 8281636
21 Herrmann H.C. Laskey W.K. Pressure loss recovery in aortic valve stenosis: contemporary relevance Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 99 2022 195 197 33886155
22 Messika-Zeitoun D. Aubry M.C. Detaint D. Evaluation and clinical implications of aortic valve calcification measured by electron-beam computed tomography Circulation 110 2004 356 362 10.1161/01.CIR.0000135469.82545.D0 15249504
23 Cueff C. Serfaty J.M. Cimadevilla C. Measurement of aortic valve calcification using multislice computed tomography: correlation with haemodynamic severity of aortic stenosis and clinical implication for patients with low ejection fraction Heart 97 2011 721 726 10.1136/hrt.2010.198853 20720250
24 Pawade T. Clavel M.A. Tribouilloy C. Computed tomography aortic valve calcium scoring in patients with aortic stenosis Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 11 2018 e007146 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.117.007146
25 Clavel M.A. Pibarot P. Messika-Zeitoun D. Impact of aortic valve calcification, as measured by MDCT, on survival in patients with aortic stenosis: results of an international registry study J Am Coll Cardiol 64 2014 1202 1213 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.05.066 25236511
26 Bohbot Y. Renard C. Manrique A. Usefulness of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in aortic stenosis Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 13 2020 e010356 10.1161/circimaging.119.010356
27 Larsen L.H. Kofoed K.F. Carstensen H.G. Aortic valve area assessed with 320-detector computed tomography: comparison with transthoracic echocardiography Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 30 2014 165 173 24126620
28 Ash J. Sandhu G.S. Arriola-Montenegro J. Performance of computed tomographic angiography–based aortic valve area for assessment of aortic stenosis J Am Heart Assoc 12 2023 e029973 10.1161/jaha.123.029973
29 Woldendorp K. Bannon P.G. Grieve S.M. Evaluation of aortic stenosis using cardiovascular magnetic resonance: a systematic review & meta-analysis J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 22 2020 45 10.1186/s12968-020-00633-z 32536342
30 Clavel M.A. Malouf J. Messika-Zeitoun D. Aortic valve area calculation in aortic stenosis by CT and Doppler echocardiography JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 8 2015 248 257 25772832
31 Guglielmo M. Rovera C. Rabbat M.G. Pontone G. The role of cardiac magnetic resonance in aortic stenosis and regurgitation J Cardiovasc Dev Dis 9 2022 108 35448084
32 Grafton-Clarke C. Njoku P. Aben J.P. Validation of aortic valve pressure gradient quantification using semi-automated 4D flow CMR pipeline BMC Res Notes 15 2022 151 35488286
33 Hälvä R. Vaara S.M. Peltonen J.I. Peak flow measurements in patients with severe aortic stenosis: a prospective comparative study between cardiovascular magnetic resonance 2D and 4D flow and transthoracic echocardiography J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 23 2021 132 10.1186/s12968-021-00825-1 34775954
34 van Gils L. Clavel M.A. Vollema E.M. Prognostic implications of moderate aortic stenosis in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction J Am Coll Cardiol 69 2017 2383 2392 28494976
35 Jean G. Van Mieghem N.M. Gegenava T. Moderate aortic stenosis in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction J Am Coll Cardiol 77 2021 2796 2803 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.04.014 34082909
36 Khan K.R. Khan O.A. Chen C. Impact of moderate aortic stenosis in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction J Am Coll Cardiol 81 2023 1235 1244 10.1016/j.jacc.2023.01.032 36990542
37 Hachicha Z. Dumesnil J.G. Pibarot P. Usefulness of the valvuloarterial impedance to predict adverse outcome in asymptomatic aortic stenosis J Am Coll Cardiol 54 2009 1003 1011 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.04.079 19729117
38 Cramariuc D. Cioffi G. Rieck A.E. Low-flow aortic stenosis in asymptomatic patients: valvular-arterial impedance and systolic function from the SEAS substudy JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2 2009 390 399 19580719
39 Spitzer E. Van Mieghem N.M. Pibarot P. Rationale and design of the transcatheter aortic valve replacement to UNload the left ventricle in patients with ADvanced heart failure (TAVR UNLOAD) trial Am Heart J 182 2016 80 88 10.1016/j.ahj.2016.08.009 27914503
40 Stassen J. Ewe S.H. Hirasawa K. Left ventricular remodelling patterns in patients with moderate aortic stenosis Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 23 2022 1326 1335 10.1093/ehjci/jeac018 35179595
41 Généreux P. Pibarot P. Redfors B. Staging classification of aortic stenosis based on the extent of cardiac damage Eur Heart J 38 2017 3351 3358 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx381 29020232
42 Amanullah M.R. Pio S.M. Ng A.C.T. Prognostic implications of associated cardiac abnormalities detected on echocardiography in patients with moderate aortic stenosis JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 14 2021 1724 1737 10.1016/j.jcmg.2021.04.009 34023268
43 Ito S. Miranda W.R. Nkomo V.T. Prognostic risk stratification of patients with moderate aortic stenosis J Am Soc Echocardiogr 34 2021 248 256 10.1016/j.echo.2020.10.012 33161066
44 Stassen J. Ewe S.H. Butcher S.C. Prognostic implications of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction in moderate aortic stenosis Heart 108 2022 1401 1407 10.1136/heartjnl-2022-320886 35688475
45 Ng A.C.T. Delgado V. Bertini M. Alterations in multidirectional myocardial functions in patients with aortic stenosis and preserved ejection fraction: a two-dimensional speckle tracking analysis Eur Heart J 32 2011 1542 1550 10.1093/eurheartj/ehr084 21447510
46 Zhu D. Ito I. Miranda W.R. Left ventricular global longitudinal strain is associated with long-term outcomes in moderate aortic stenosis Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 13 2020 e009958 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.119.009958
47 Hayward C. Thornton G. Asher A. Determinants of outcome in patients with left ventricular impairment and moderate aortic stenosis JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 13 2020 1449 1450 10.1016/j.jcmg.2020.01.019 32199839
48 Stassen J. Pio S.M. Ewe S.H. Left ventricular global longitudinal strain in patients with moderate aortic stenosis J Am Soc Echocardiogr 35 2022 791 800.e4 10.1016/j.echo.2022.03.008 35301093
49 Rassi A.N. Pibarot P. Elmariah S. Left ventricular remodelling in aortic stenosis Can J Cardiol 30 2014 1004 1011 10.1016/j.cjca.2014.04.026 25151283
50 Everett R.J. Tastet L. Clavel M.A. Progression of hypertrophy and myocardial fibrosis in aortic stenosis: a multicenter cardiac magnetic resonance study Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 11 2018 e007451 10.1161/circimaging.117.007451
51 Treibel T.A. Kozor R. Schofield R. Reverse myocardial remodeling following valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis J Am Coll Cardiol 71 2018 860 871 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.12.035 29471937
52 Chin C.W.L. Everett R.J. Kwiecinski J. Myocardial fibrosis and cardiac decompensation in aortic stenosis JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 10 2017 1320 1333 10.1016/j.jcmg.2016.10.007 28017384
53 Bull S. White S.K. Piechnik S.K. Human non-contrast T1 values and correlation with histology in diffuse fibrosis Heart 99 2013 932 10.1136/heartjnl-2012-303052 23349348
54 Everett R.J. Treibel T.A. Fukui M. Extracellular myocardial volume in patients with aortic stenosis J Am Coll Cardiol 75 2020 304 316 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.11.032 31976869
55 Chin C.W.L. Shah A.S.V. McAllister D.A. High-sensitivity troponin I concentrations are a marker of an advanced hypertrophic response and adverse outcomes in patients with aortic stenosis Eur Heart J 35 2014 2312 2321 10.1093/eurheartj/ehu189 24829362
56 Dweck M.R. Joshi S. Murigu T. Midwall fibrosis is an independent predictor of mortality in patients with aortic stenosis J Am Coll Cardiol 58 2011 1271 1279 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.03.064 21903062
57 Lee H. Park J.-B. Yoon Y.E. Noncontrast myocardial T1 mapping by cardiac magnetic resonance predicts outcome in patients with aortic stenosis JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 11 2018 974 983 10.1016/j.jcmg.2017.09.005 29153562
58 Treibel T.A. López B. González A. Reappraising myocardial fibrosis in severe aortic stenosis: an invasive and non-invasive study in 133 patients Eur Heart J 39 2018 699 709 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx353 29020257
59 Musa T.A. Treibel T.A. Vassiliou V.S. Myocardial scar and mortality in severe aortic stenosis Circulation 138 2018 1935 1947 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.032839 30002099
60 Steadman C.D. Ray S. Ng L.L. McCann G.P. Natriuretic peptides in common valvular heart disease J Am Coll Cardiol 55 2010 2034 2048 10.1016/j.jacc.2010.02.021 20447526
61 Weber M. Arnold R. Rau M. Relation of N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide to severity of valvular aortic stenosis Am J Cardiol 94 2004 740 745 10.1016/j.amjcard.2004.05.055 15374777
62 Ito S. Miranda W.R. Jaffe A.S. Oh J.K. Prognostic value of N-terminal pro-form B-type natriuretic peptide in patients with moderate aortic stenosis Am J Cardiol 125 2020 1566 1570 10.1016/j.amjcard.2020.02.004 32204871
63 McDonagh T.A. Metra M. Adamo M. 2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: developed by the Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC Eur Heart J 42 2021 3599 3726 10.1093/eurheartj/ehab368 34447992
64 Heidenreich P.A. Bozkurt B. Aguilar D. 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA guideline for the management of heart failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice guidelines Circulation 145 2022 e895 e1032 10.1161/cir.0000000000001063 35363499
65 Perera D. Clayton T. O’Kane P.D. Percutaneous revascularization for ischemic left ventricular dysfunction N Engl J Med 387 2022 1351 1360 10.1056/NEJMoa2206606 36027563
66 Solomon S.D. McMurray J.J.V. Claggett B. Dapagliflozin in heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction N Engl J Med 387 2022 1089 1098 10.1056/NEJMoa2206286 36027570
67 Anker S.D. Butler J. Filippatos G. Empagliflozin in heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction N Engl J Med 385 2021 1451 1461 10.1056/NEJMoa2107038 34449189
68 Amat-Santos I.J. Sánchez-Luna J.P. Abu-Assi E. Rationale and design of the dapagliflozin after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (DapaTAVI) randomized trial Eur J Heart Fail 24 2022 581 588 34693613
69 Chan K.L. Teo K. Dumesnil J.G. Ni A. Tam J. Effect of lipid lowering with rosuvastatin on progression of aortic stenosis: results of the aortic stenosis progression observation: measuring effects of rosuvastatin (Astronomer) trial Circulation 121 2010 306 314 10.1161/circulationaha.109.900027 20048204
70 Rossebø A.B. Pedersen T.R. Boman K. Intensive lipid lowering with simvastatin and ezetimibe in aortic stenosis N Engl J Med 359 2008 1343 1356 10.1056/NEJMoa0804602 18765433
71 Cowell S.J. Newby D.E. Prescott R.J. A randomized trial of intensive lipid-lowering therapy in calcific aortic stenosis N Engl J Med 352 2005 2389 2397 15944423
72 Cairns B.J. Coffey S. Travis R.C. A replicated, genome-wide significant association of aortic stenosis with a genetic variant for lipoprotein(a): meta-analysis of published and novel data Circulation 135 2017 1181 1183 10.1161/circulationaha.116.026103z 28320808
73 Capoulade R. Chan K.L. Yeang C. Oxidized Phospholipids, lipoprotein(a), and progression of calcific aortic valve stenosis J Am Coll Cardiol 66 2015 1236 1246 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.07.020 26361154
74 O’Donoghue M.L. Fazio S. Giugliano R.P. Lipoprotein(a), PCSK9 inhibition, and cardiovascular risk Circulation 139 2019 1483 1492 10.1161/circulationaha.118.037184 30586750
75 Sabatine M.S. Giugliano R.P. Keech A.C. Evolocumab and clinical outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease N Engl J Med 376 2017 1713 1722 10.1056/NEJMoa1615664 28304224
76 Bittner V.A. Szarek M. Aylward P.E. Effect of alirocumab on lipoprotein(a) and cardiovascular risk after acute coronary syndrome J Am Coll Cardiol 75 2020 133 144 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.10.057 31948641
77 Bergmark B.A. O’Donoghue M.L. Murphy S.A. An exploratory analysis of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibition and aortic stenosis in the FOURIER trial JAMA Cardiol 5 2020 709 713 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.0728 32347887
78 Samad Z. Vora A.N. Dunning A. Aortic valve surgery and survival in patients with moderate or severe aortic stenosis and left ventricular dysfunction Eur Heart J 37 2016 2276 2286 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv701 26787441
79 Bastos M.B. Schreuder J.J. Daemen J. Van Mieghem N.M. Hemodynamic effects of transcatheter aortic valve replacement for moderate aortic stenosis with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction JACC Cardiovasc Interv 12 2019 684 686 10.1016/j.jcin.2019.01.244 30878476
80 Ludwig S. Schofer N. Abdel-Wahab M. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with reduced ejection fraction and nonsevere aortic stenosis Circ Cardiovasc Interv 16 2023 e012768
