Relevance of using the right parasternal projection in ultrasound assessing the severity of aortic stenosis. Results of a single-center prospective study

Objective. To evaluate the effectiveness of using the right parasternal view (RPV) in addition to the apical five-chamber view (A5CV) for assessing the severity of aortic stenosis (AS) and to identify factors influencing the concordance of AS severity assessment between RPV and A5CV.

Materials and Methods. During the patient recruitment period, 232 patients were consecutively examined, and 186 (80%) patients with an available RPV were included in the final analysis.

Inclusion criteria: Patients with AS (combination of a calcified aortic valve and a peak transaortic velocity >2.5 m/s) and an available RPV for AS severity assessment.

Results. The average Gmax and Gmean values assessed in RPV were significantly higher, and the average AVA and DVI values were lower compared to similar values assessed in the A5СV, p <0.05. Bland-Altman analysis showed that the mean differences in Gmax and Gmean between A5CV and RPV were 10.2±14.3 mmHg and 4.5±8.9 mmHg, respectively. The mean differences in AVA and DVI between A5CV and RPV were 0.1±0.15 cm² and 0.02±0.03 ml, respectively. Using RPV allowed reclassification of AS severity to a more severe degree of aortic stenosis in 44 (23%) patients. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified the aorto-septal angle as the only independent parameter significantly affecting the concordance of AS severity assessment between the two acoustic projections (OR 0.76; 95% CI 0.69-0.83, p <0.001).

Conclusion. 1. The use of A5CV alone may lead to an underestimation of AS severity in a significant proportion of cases. Assessing the severity of aortic stenosis in the RPV in addition to the A5СV can significantly increase the diagnostic accuracy of echocardiography.

2.The aorto-septal angle is an independent factor significantly influencing the concordance of AS severity assessment between the two echocardiographic views.

1. Osnabrugge RL, Mylotte D, Head SJ, et al. Aortic stenosis in the elderly: disease prevalence and number of candidates for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis and modeling study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013; 62 (11): 1002–1012.

2. Skjaerpe T, Hegrenaes L, Hatle L. Noninvasive estimation of valve area in patients with aortic stenosis by Doppler ultrasound and two-dimensional echocardiography. Circulation. 1985; 72 (4): 810–818.

3. Baumgartner H Chair, Hung J Co-Chair, Bermejo J, Chambers JB, Edvardsen T, Goldstein S, Lancellotti P, LeFevre M, Miller F Jr, Otto CM. 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. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017 Mar 1; 18 (3): 254-275. doi: 10.1093/ehjci/jew335. PMID: 28363204.

4. Hatle L, Angelsen BA, Tromsdal A. Non-invasive assessment of aortic stenosis by Doppler ultrasound. Br Heart J. 1980 Mar; 43 (3): 284-92. doi: 10.1136/hrt.43.3.284. PMID: 7437175; PMCID: PMC482277.

5. Williams GA, Labovitz AJ, Nelson JG, Kennedy HL. Value of multiple echocardiographic views in the evaluation of aortic stenosis in adults by continuous-wave Doppler. Am J Cardiol. 1985 Feb 1; 55 (4): 445-9. doi: 10.1016/0002-9149(85)90391-1. PMID: 3969883.

6. Pazos-López P, Paredes-Galán E, Peteiro-Vázquez J, López-Rodríguez E, García-Rodríguez C, Bilbao-Quesada R, Blanco-González E, González-Ríos C, Calvo-Iglesias F, Íñiguez-Romo A. Value of non-apical echocardiographic views in the up-grading of patients with aortic stenosis. Scand Cardiovasc J. 2021 Oct; 55 (5): 279-286. doi: 10.1080/14017431.2021.1955962. Epub 2021 Jul 30. PMID: 34328392

7. Thaden JJ, Nkomo VT, Lee KJ, Oh JK. Doppler Imaging in Aortic Stenosis: The Importance of the Nonapical Imaging Windows to Determine Severity in a Contemporary Cohort. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015 Jul; 28 (7): 780-5. doi: 10.1016/j.echo.2015.02.016. Epub 2015 Apr 6. PMID: 25857547.

8. Benfari G, Gori AM, Rossi A, Papesso B, Vassanelli C, Zito GB, Nistri S. Feasibility and relevance of right parasternal view for assessing severity and rate of progression of aortic valve stenosis in primary care. Int J Cardiol. 2017 Aug 1; 240: 446-451. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2017.04.091. Epub 2017 May 3. PMID: 28499670.

9. Shimamura T, Izumo M, Sato Y, Shiokawa N, Uenomachi N, Miyauchi M, Miyamoto J, Kikuchi H, Shinoda J, Okamura T, Akashi YJ. Additive value of the right parasternal view for the assessment of aortic stenosis. Echocardiography. 2022 Oct; 39 (10): 1338-1343. doi: 10.1111/echo.15464. Epub 2022 Oct 2. PMID: 36184264.

10. de Monchy CC, Lepage L, Boutron I, Leye M, Detaint D, Hyafil F, Brochet E, Iung B, Vahanian A, Messika-Zeitoun D. Usefulness of the right parasternal view and non-imaging continuous-wave Doppler transducer for the evaluation of the severity of aortic stenosis in the modern area. Eur J Echocardiogr. 2009 May; 10 (3): 420-4. doi: 10.1093/ejechocard/jen301. Epub 2008 Nov 25. PMID: 19036750.

11. Cho EJ, Kim SM, Park SJ, Lee SC, Park SW. Identification of Factors that Predict whether the Right Parasternal View Is Required for Accurate Evaluation of Aortic Stenosis Severity. Echocardiography. 2016 Jun; 33 (6): 830-7. doi: 10.1111/echo.13181. Epub 2016 Jan 24. PMID: 26803922

12. Fowles RE, Martin RP, Popp RL: Apparent asymmetric septal hypertrophy due to angled interventricular septum. Am J Cardiol. 1980; 46: 386–392.

13. Barkhordarian R, Wen-Hong D, Li W, et al: Geometry of the left ventricular outflow tract in fixed subaortic stenosis and intact ventricular septum: An echocardiographic study in children and adults. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007; 133: 196–203

14. Otto CM, Nishimura RA, Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Erwin JP 3rd, Gentile F, Jneid H, Krieger EV, Mack M, McLeod C, O'Gara PT, Rigolin VH, Sundt TM 3rd, Thompson A, Toly C. 2020 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2021 Feb 2; 143 (5): e35-e71. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000932. Epub 2020 Dec 17. Erratum in: Circulation. 2021 Feb 2; 143 (5): e228. Erratum in: Circulation. 2021 Mar 9; 143 (10): e784. PMID: 33332149.

15. Vahanian A, Beyersdorf F, Praz F, Milojevic M, Baldus S, Bauersachs J, Capodanno D, Conradi L, De Bonis M, De Paulis R, Delgado V, Freemantle N, Gilard M, Haugaa KH, Jeppsson A, Jüni P, Pierard L, Prendergast BD, Sádaba JR, Tribouilloy C, Wojakowski W; ESC/EACTS Scientific Document Group. 2021 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J. 2022 Feb 12; 43 (7): 561-632. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehab395. Erratum in: Eur Heart J. 2022 Feb 18; PMID: 34453165.

16. Kang, D.H.; Park, S.J.; Lee, S.A.; Lee, S.; Kim, D.H.; Kim, H.K.; Yun, S.C.; Hong, G.R.; Song, J.M.; Chung, C.H.; et al. Early Surgery or Conservative Care for Asymptomatic Aortic Stenosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 382, 111–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

17. Banovic, M.; Putnik, S.; Penicka, M.; Doros, G.; Deja, M.A.; Kockova, R.; Kotrc, M.; Glaveckaite, S.; Gasparovic, H.; Pavlovic, N.; et al. Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Conservative Treatment in Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis: The AVATAR Trial. Circulation. 2022, 145, 648–658, Erratum in Circulation. 2022, 145, e761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

18. Wei, C.; Li, Z.; Xu, C.; Yin, T.; Zhao, C. Timing of surgery for asymptomatic patients with severe aortic valve stenosis: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Hellenic. J. Cardiol. 2021, 62, 270–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

19. Ullah, W.; Gowda, S.N.; Khan, M.S.; Sattar, Y.; Al-Khadra, Y.; Rashid, M.; Mohamed, M.O.; Alkhouli, M.; Kapadia, S.; Bagur, R.; et al. Early intervention or watchful waiting for asymptomatic severe aortic valve stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Cardiovasc. Med. 2020, 21, 897–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

20. Everett, R.J.; Tastet, L.; Clavel, M.A.; Chin, C.W.L.; Capoulade, R.; Vassiliou, V.S.; Kwiecinski, J.; Gomez, M.; van Beek, E.J.R.; White, A.C.; et al. Progression of Hypertrophy and Myocardial Fibrosis in Aortic Stenosis: A Multicenter Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Study. Circ. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2018, 11, e007451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

21. Kvaslerud, A.B.; Santic, K.; Hussain, A.I.; Auensen, A.; Fiane, A.; Skulstad, H.; Aaberge, L.; Gullestad, L.; Broch, K. Outcomes in asymptomatic, severe aortic stenosis. PLoS ONE. 2021, 16, e0249610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

22. Golukhova E.Z, Slivneva IV, Farulova IY, Skopin II, Marapov DI, Murysova DV, Pirushkina YD, Volkovskaya IV. Advantages of Multiposition Scanning in Echocardiographic Assessment of the Severity of Discordant Aortic Stenosis. Pathophysiology. 2023 Apr 26;30(2):174-185. doi: 10.3390/pathophysiology30020015. PMID: 37218913; PMCID: PMC10204481

23. Michalski, B.; Dweck, M.R.; Marsan, N.A.; Cameli, M.; D’Andrea, A.; Carvalho, R.F.; Holte, E.; Podlesnikar, T.; Manka, R.; Haugaa, K.H. The evaluation of aortic stenosis, how the new guidelines are implemented across Europe: A survey by EACVI. Eur. Heart J. Cardiovasc. Imaging. 2020, 21, 357–362, Erratum in Eur. Heart J. Cardiovasc. Imaging. 2020, 21, 804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef].

24. Z. Hachicha, J.G. Dumesnil, P. Bogaty, et al.Paradoxical low-flow, low-gradient severe aortic stenosis despite preserved ejection fraction is associated with higher afterload and reduced survival. Circulation. 115 (2007), pp. 2856-2864 http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.668681

25. D. Mohty, J. Magne, M. Deltreuil, et al.Outcome and impact of surgery in paradoxical low-flow, low-gradient severe aortic stenosis and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction: a cardiac catheterization study. Circulation. 128 (2013), pp. S235-S242 http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.000031

26. M.F. Eleid, P. Sorajja, H.I. Michelena, et al. Flow-gradient patterns in severe aortic stenosis with preserved ejection fraction: clinical characteristics and predictors of survival. Circulation. 128 (2013), pp. 1781-1789. http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.003695

27. P. Lancellotti, J. Magne, E. Donal, et al. Clinical outcome in asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis: insights from the new proposed aortic stenosis grading classification. J Am Coll Cardiol Elsevier Inc. 59 (2012), pp. 235-243

28. F. Maes, J. Boulif, S. Piérard, et al. Natural history of paradoxical low-gradient severe aortic stenosis. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 7 (2014), pp. 714-722 http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.113.001695

29. N. Jander, J. Minners, I. Holme, et al. Outcome of patients with low-gradient severe aortic stenosis and preserved ejection fraction. Circulation. 123 (2011), pp. 887-895 http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.983510

30.