Low-flow, low-gradient severe aortic stenosis in patients with normal ejection fraction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The occurrence of low-flow low-gradient severe aortic stenosis in patients with normal left ventricle (LV) ejection fraction has only been recently described. The purpose of this review is to highlight the diagnostic and management specificities of this entity. RECENT FINDINGS: In the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, the criteria for severe aortic stenosis are an effective orifice area less than1.0 cm or less than 0.6 cm/m, a transvalvular mean gradient greater than 40 mmHg and a peak aortic jet velocity greater than 4.0 m/s. The guidelines also acknowledge that lower gradients may be observed in patients with depressed ejection fraction, with the implication that such an occurrence is not expected in patients with normal ejection fraction. However, recent studies confirm that a bona fide low-flow, low-gradient (LFLG) state may nonetheless be observed in 10-25% of patients with severe aortic stenosis and normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). This entity bears analogy with normal LVEF heart failure and is due to a restrictive physiology in relation with more pronounced LV concentric remodeling, a smaller LV cavity size and reductions in LV compliance and filling. SUMMARY: The clinical relevance of LFLG severe aortic stenosis is now recognized in the most recent European (European Society of Cardiology/European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery) guidelines, which also emphasize that it should be confirmed as being due to low-flow conditions. In particular, patients with bona fide paradoxical LFLG aortic stenosis should be distinguished from patients with normal flow and low gradient because of inconsistent cutoff criteria because, among patients with severe aortic stenosis, the former have the worst prognosis, whereas the latter have the best.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".