Background
In patients with severe aortic stenosis, left ventricular hypertrophy is a frequent pathophysiological adaptation to pressure overload [
1]. However, the enlarged myocardial cell mass and interstitial fibrosis result in increased myocardial stiffness and dysfunction [
2‐
5]. Aortic valve replacement reduces afterload in patients with severe aortic stenosis. In recent years, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a valuable alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement in patients at high surgical risk because of age and/or comorbidities [
6‐
10]. Numerous studies have shown excellent and sustained transvalvular hemodynamics after TAVI, together with a significant improvement in symptoms and quality of life [
11‐
13].
Hemodynamic changes that occur after TAVI have been generally evaluated by echocardiographic methods [
14,
15]. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is more accurate and reproducible than two-dimensional echocardiography in the three-dimensional volumetric evaluation of left ventricular volumes, function and mass [
16]. However, there is a lack of knowledge on the use of CMR in TAVI patients for assessing the above parameters. To fill this gap, we aimed at using CMR to investigate left ventricular reverse remodeling at six-month after TAVI.
Discussion
Although limited by the small sample size, our study enables a deeper understanding of left ventricular reverse remodeling occurring after TAVI in a complex clinical cohort, by means of a reliable and accurate technique as CMR. In particular, at six months, we observed a statistically significant reduction of LVMi.
Regression of myocardial hypertrophy due to the decrease of ventricular afterload after surgical aortic valve replacement is a well-recognized phenomenon [
5,
22,
23]. In particular, left ventricular mass decreases mainly within the first six months after surgical valve replacement. This observation has been also proven in studies based on CMR. In a CMR study of 24 patients, Biederman et al. [
24] demonstrated that following surgical valve replacement, left ventricular mass markedly decreased at six months (157 ± 42 to 134 ± 32 g/m
2, p < 0.005) and continued to further trend downward at 4 years (127 ± 32 g/m
2; p =NS). Lamb et al. [
25] showed that, early after surgical valve replacement, patients with aortic valve stenosis show a decrease in both LVMi, LVMi/LVEDVi ratio and improvement in diastolic filling.
Studies based on echocardiography seem to confirm that after TAVI the left ventricle undergoes a similar reverse remodeling process [
26‐
30]. In a study by Giannini et al. comparing patients who underwent TAVI with the CoreValve bioprosthesis with those who underwent surgical aortic replacement, left ventricular reverse remodeling was found in all patients in the absence of prosthesis-patient mismatch [
29]. Tzikas et al. found a significant regression in left ventricular masses in 63 consecutive patients one year after TAVI. However, regression was incomplete and was not accompanied by an improvement in left ventricular diastolic function [
30]. However, it is important to underscore that transthoracic echocardiography has several limitations for the assessment of left ventricular volumes and LVEF, while CMR is currently considered the gold-standard for their assessment, especially in case of heart failure, myocardial infarction, cardiomyopathy, poor acoustic window or discrepancies between different methodologies [
16]. In fact, the accuracy of left ventricular volumes and LVEF with two-dimensional echocardiography is limited by image position, geometric assumptions, and boundary tracing errors [
31]. To date, few studies have been performed with CMR to assess left ventricular remodeling after TAVI [
32,
33]. Indeed, CMR is a noninvasive technique that allows for accurate measurement of left ventricular mass and volumes with high reproducibility without the use of geometric assumptions, thereby providing potentially more accurate information [
34].
The significant reduction of the left ventricular mass observed in our study was not accompanied by a corresponding significant increase in LVEF and SV. Several studies demonstrated improved LVEF after surgical aortic valve replacement, particularly in patients with low preoperative ejection fraction [
35]. However, in patients with normal preoperative LVEF, results were variable. In particular, it has been suggested that the improvement in left ventricular function is more pronounced in patients with LVEF < 50% [
35]. Parameters that could influence the left ventricular reverse remodeling process include age [
36], female sex [
37], size of the prosthesis [
38], presence of fibrosis [
39] and myocardial perfusion reserve [
40]. In addition, we have not observed the significant change in left ventricular volume shown in studies of the surgical aortic valve replacement [
24,
25,
39]. This may suggest a different process of reverse remodeling between TAVI and SAVR, but the lack of a comparative control arm in our study does not allow drawing firm conclusions in this regards.
We did not collect CMR data regarding post-TAVI aortic regurgitation that could have influenced left ventricular remodeling. However, based on trans-thoracic echocardiography, no patient had a residual severe aortic insufficiency, while a mild to moderate insufficiency was present in 4 patients, a mild insufficiency in 7 and no hemodynamically significant regurgitation in the remaining population. Moreover, another major limitation of this study is the lack of information on diastolic dysfunction, flow, and changes in gradients and aortic valve areas pre and post TAVI. Finally, our study demonstrated the absence of periprocedural myocardial infarction potentially caused by the deployment of the prosthesis and possible calcium embolization.
Competing interests
Non-financial competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
ALM conceived and designed the study, participated in data analysis, interpretation and manuscript drafting and was responsible for the final manuscript draft. AS participated in study design, data analysis and interpretation, statistical analysis and manuscript drafting. DC participated in data analysis and interpretation, statistical analysis and manuscript drafting. AS, AC, IC, GP, MF and RP performed additional data analysis. CP and CT participated in revising the manuscript critically for important intellectual content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.