Aortic Stenosis: Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and Therapy

Evaluation and Management of Aortic Stenosis for the Emergency Clinician: An Evidence-Based Review of the Literature

INTRODUCTION

Aortic stenosis is a common condition among older adults that can be associated with dangerous outcomes, due to both the disease itself and its influence on other conditions.

OBJECTIVE

This review provides an evidence-based summary of the current emergency department (ED) evaluation and management of aortic stenosis.

DISCUSSION

Aortic stenosis refers to significant narrowing of the aortic valve and can be caused by calcific disease, congenital causes, or rheumatic valvular disease. Symptoms of advanced disease include angina, dyspnea, and syncope. Patients with these symptoms have a much higher mortality rate than asymptomatic patients. Initial evaluation should include an electrocardiogram, complete blood count, basic metabolic profile, coagulation studies, troponin, brain natriuretic peptide, type and screen, and a chest radiograph. Transthoracic echocardiogram is the test of choice, but point-of-care ultrasound has been found to have good accuracy when a formal echocardiogram is not feasible. Initial management should begin with restoring preload and ensuring a normal heart rate, as both bradycardia and tachycardia can lead to clinical decompensation. For patients with high blood pressure and heart failure symptoms, nitrate agents may be reasonable, but hypotension should be avoided. Dobutamine can increase inotropy. For hypotensive patients, vasopressors should be used at the lowest effective dose. The treatment of choice is valve replacement, but extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and percutaneous balloon dilatation of the aortic valve have been described as temporizing measures.

CONCLUSION

Aortic stenosis is an important condition that can lead to dangerous outcomes and requires prompt recognition and disease-specific management in the ED.

Sex Differences in the Utilization and Outcomes of Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Severe Aortic Stenosis

Background

Studies assessing the differential impact of sex on outcomes of aortic valve replacement (AVR) yielded conflicting results. We sought to investigate sex‐related differences in AVR utilization, patient risk profile, and in‐hospital outcomes using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample.

Methods and Results

In total, 166 809 patients (63% male and 37% female) who underwent AVR between 2003 and 2014 were identified, and 48.5% had a concomitant cardiac surgery procedure. Compared with men, women were older and had more nonatherosclerotic comorbid conditions including hypertension, diabetes mellitus, obstructive pulmonary disease, atrial fibrillation/flutter, and anemia but fewer incidences of coronary and peripheral arterial disease and prior sternotomies. In‐hospital mortality was significantly higher in women (5.6% versus 4%, P<0.001). Propensity matching was performed to assess the impact of sex on the outcomes of isolated AVR and yielded 28 237 matched pairs of male and female participants. In the propensity‐matched groups, in‐hospital mortality was higher in women (3.3% versus 2.9%, P<0.001). Along with vascular complications and blood transfusion (6% versus 5.6%, P=0.027 and 40.4% versus 33.9%, P<0.001, respectively). Rates of stroke, permanent pacemaker implantation, and acute kidney injury requiring dialysis were similar (2.4% versus 2.4%, P=0.99; 6% versus 6.3%, P=0.15; and 1.4% versus 1.3%, P=0.14, respectively). Length of stay median and interquartile range were both similar between groups (7±6 days). Rates of nonhome discharge were higher among women (27.9% versus 19.6%, P<0.001).

Conclusions

Women have worse in‐hospital mortality following AVR compared with men. Coupled with the accumulating evidence suggesting higher magnitude of benefit of transcatheter AVR over AVR in women, women should perhaps be offered transcatheter AVR over AVR at a lower threshold than men.