Congenital valvar aortic stenosis: Natural history and assessment for operation

62Citations
Citations of this article
17Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Two hundred and eighteen patients with congenital valvar aortic stenosis aged between 1 and 25 years at presentation were followed for one to 26 years (average 8.7 years). Assessment of severity of aortic stenosis was essentially based on clinical findings including symptoms, the character of the pulse, and the behaviour of the second heart sound, management being further influenced by the degree of left ventricular hypertrophy shown in the electrocardiogram. There was reasonable correlation between clinical and haemodynamic assessment and all patients with a gradient between left ventricle and aorta (LV-Ao) greater than 50 mmHg (6.7 kPa) were judged to have moderate or severe aortic stenosis on physical signs. 55% of those judged mild on presentation still had a mild lesion 18 years later; 42% of those judged moderate on presentation still had a moderate lesion 15 years later. 44 patients had an operation and of the 30 patients who underwent aortic valvotomy, only 40% still had a satisfactory result 13 years later. There were three properative and seven postoperative deaths but in only two patients was death directly related to severe aortic stenosis and both of these patients had been lost to follow-up. It is concluded that indications for operation are aortic stenosis which is moderate or severe on physical findings, together with restrictive symptoms or ST and T wave changes on the electrocardiogram. Using these criteria, the risk of sudden death is minimal and irreversible myocardial damage unlikely. We do not recommend either routine cardiac catheterisation or routine operation at any arbitrary LV-Ao gradient.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Hossack, K. F., Neutze, J. M., Lowe, J. B., & Barratt-Boyes, B. G. (1980). Congenital valvar aortic stenosis: Natural history and assessment for operation. British Heart Journal, 43(5), 561–573. https://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.43.5.561

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free