Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 13, 2026

Lumped-Parameter and Finite Element Modeling of Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction
Published on: February 13, 2021
Invasive hemodynamic characteristics of low gradient severe aortic stenosis despite preserved ejection fraction
Juliane Lauten1, Christian Rost, Ole A Breithardt
1Med.Klinik 2, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.
Objectives:
The study sought to compare echocardiographic with invasive hemodynamic data in patients with "paradoxic" aortic stenosis and in patients with conventionally defined severe aortic stenosis.
Background:
Controversy exists whether low gradient severe aortic stenosis despite preserved ejection fraction ("paradoxic" aortic stenosis; aortic valve area <1 cm(2), mean gradient <40 mm Hg, ejection fraction >50%), which has been mainly diagnosed by echocardiography (echo), may be largely due to mistakes in echocardiographic measurements.
Methods:
We compared echocardiographic and invasive hemodynamic data from 58 patients (43% male, mean age 77 ± 5 years) with "paradoxic" aortic stenosis. Data of 22 patients (45% male, mean age 73 ± 7 years) with conventionally defined severe aortic stenosis area (aortic valve area ≤1 cm(2), mean gradient >40 mm Hg, ejection fraction ≥50%) were also analyzed.
Results:
In patients with "paradoxic" aortic stenosis, orifice area by echo (0.80 ± 0.15 cm(2)) and catheterization showed modest agreement, whether stroke volume was measured by oxymetry (0.69 ± 0.16 cm(2), bias 0.14 ± 0.17 cm(2)), or by thermodilution (0.85 ± 0.19 cm(2), bias -0.03 ± 0.19 cm(2)). Mean systolic gradients were very similar (32 ± 7 mm Hg vs. 31 ± 6 mm Hg; bias -0.08 ± 7.8 mm Hg). In comparison, in patients with conventionally defined severe aortic stenosis, orifice area by echo was 0.72 ± 0.17 cm(2) and by catheterization 0.51 ± 0.15 cm(2) (oxymetry) and 0.68 ± 0.21 cm(2) (thermodilution), respectively, and mean systolic gradient 51 ± 10 mm Hg and 55 ± 8 mm Hg, respectively. Ejection fractions did not differ significantly in both groups. Ascending aortic diameter was significantly smaller in the "paradoxic" aortic stenosis group than in patients with conventionally defined severe aortic stenosis (28 ± 5 mm vs. 31 ± 5 mm), and energy loss index was significantly larger (0.51 ± 0.12 cm(2)/m(2) vs. 0.42 ± 0.09 cm(2)/m(2), respectively). Heart rate and mean blood pressure during echo and catheterization were not significantly different.
Conclusions:
Occurrence of low gradient severe aortic stenosis despite preserved ejection fraction was confirmed by invasive hemodynamics and was not the result of a systematic bias in the echo calculation of aortic orifice area.
Related Concept Videos
Mitral Stenosis I: Introduction
Aortic Regurgitation II: Clinical Features and Diagnostic Tests
Aortic Regurgitation I: Introduction
Mitral Stenosis II: Clinical features and Diagnostic Tests
Heart Failure II: Pathophysiology
Pathophysiology of Heart Failure

