Background: In view of the better understanding of the pathophysiology of aortic valve stenosis, the complexity of assessing its severity has simultaneously grown, with relevant uncertainty persisting as to the applicability of invasive methods by cardiac catheterization and non-invasive methods based on echocardiography. The objective of this study was to analyze the hemodynamic patterns of evaluation with echocardiography compared to the estimation of severity of aortic stenosis with catheterization in consecutive patients referred for diagnostic evaluation by the laboratory of a tertiary academic hospital in the 2016 to 2018 triennium. Methods: An observational, descriptive and retrospective study of clinical characteristics and results of assessments of severity of aortic valve stenosis obtained in 96 consecutive patients, through catheterization and echocardiography. Results: A population sample of 49 men and 47 women, with a median age of 66.5 (56.5 to 72.8) years, degenerative aortic valve stenosis in 49%, and rheumatic aortic stenosis in 40%, in addition to several comorbidities, including coronary disease (37%). Using catheterization, based on the peak gradient of 48 (20 to 68), aortic valve stenosis was assessed as severe in 56%, with ventricular end-diastolic pressure of 20mmHg (16 to 30mmHg). Using echocardiography, the valve area was 0.9cm2 (0.7 to 1.2cm2), indexed valve area was 0.5cm2/m2 (0.43 to 0.5cm2/m2), with peak gradient of 62±26mmHg. Aortic valve stenosis was considered severe in 69.2%. There was disagreement between the methods regarding severity of aortic valve stenosis in 30% of exams, with a Spearman coefficient between the valve area on the echocardiogram and the peak gradient on catheterization of -0.7 (p<0.001). Conclusion: In a representative sample of various hemodynamic patterns, the assessment of severity of aortic valve stenosis, as routinely practiced in an academic laboratory, was limited to measuring the peak transvalvular gradient. The estimation of the valve area using the echocardiographic method was indirect and also subject to criticism, and contributed to the discrepancies found, rendering it justifiable to seek the improvement of both methods, in view of the clinical and hemodynamic complexity detected.