Remodeling classification system considering left ventricular volume in patients with aortic valve stenosis: Association with adverse cardiovascular outcomes

Background: To assess prevalence and clinical implications of left ventricular (LV) remodeling considering: LV volume, mass and relative wall thickness at the time of aortic valve stenosis diagnosis. Methods and Results: We retrospectively analyzed 343 patients (age 79.2 ± 9.5 years, 48.1% males) with functional aortic valve area (AVA) ≤ 1.5 cm 2 . LV geometric patterns and clinical outcomes (combined death, cardiac hospitalization, aortic valve replacement [AVR]) were evaluated. According to the new LV remodeling classification, 4.9% had normal geometry, 7.5% concentric remodeling, 39.3% concentric hypertrophy (LVH), 22.4% mixed LVH, 12.5% dilated LVH, 3.2% eccentric LVH and 4.3% eccentric remodeling, 5.5% had not classifiable LVH. Indexed stroke volume (SVi) was higher in patients with concentric LVH (40.3 ± 11.9 mL/m 2 ) and mixed LVH (41.6 ± 13.4 mL/m 2 ) and lower in patients with eccentric LVH (24.9 ± 7.7 mL/m 2 ), concentric (36.6 ± 12.7 mL/m 2 ) and eccentric remodeling (34.9 ± 9.5 mL/m 2 ), P = 0.003. During a median follow-up of 2.2 years, 260 (75.8%) had the combined end point. A significant association between the combined end point and LV dilation (P = 0.010) or LV remodeling patterns (P = 0.0001) was found. After multivariable adjustment for AVR, concentric remodeling (HR 3.12, IC 95% 1.14–8.55; P = 0.02) and dilated LVH (HR 3.48, IC 95% 1.31–9.27; P = 0.01) were strongly associated with death or cardiac hospitalizations. Conclusions: In patients with AVA ≤ 1.5 cm 2 , when the new LV remodeling classification system is applied, only a minority had normal geometry and less than half had “classic” concentric LVH or remodeling. LV volume dilatation is frequent and associated with adverse outcome. Concentric remodeling, eccentric remodeling, dilated LVH had the worst noninvasive hemodynamic profile and prognosis.