Prognostic Value of N-Terminal Pro-form B-Type Natriuretic Peptide in Patients With Moderate Aortic Stenosis

Multimodality Imaging in Aortic Stenosis: Beyond the Valve - Focusing on the Myocardium

Current guidelines of aortic stenosis (AS) management focus on valve parameters, LV systolic dysfunction, and symptoms; however, emerging data suggest that there may be benefit of aortic valve replacement before it becomes severe by present criteria. Myocardial assessment using novel multimodality imaging techniques exhibits subclinical myocardial injury and remodeling at various stages before guideline-directed interventions, which predicts adverse outcomes. This raises the question of whether implementing serial myocardial assessment should become part of the standard appraisal, thereby identifying high-risk patients aiming to minimize adverse outcomes.

Multimodality Imaging in Aortic Stenosis: Beyond the Valve - Focusing on the Myocardium

Current guidelines of aortic stenosis (AS) management focus on valve parameters, LV systolic dysfunction, and symptoms; however, emerging data suggest that there may be benefit of aortic valve replacement before it becomes severe by present criteria. Myocardial assessment using novel multimodality imaging techniques exhibits subclinical myocardial injury and remodeling at various stages before guideline-directed interventions, which predicts adverse outcomes. This raises the question of whether implementing serial myocardial assessment should become part of the standard appraisal, thereby identifying high-risk patients aiming to minimize adverse outcomes.

Novel Biomarkers and Advanced Cardiac Imaging in Aortic Stenosis: Old and New

Currently, the symptomatic status and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) play a crucial role in aortic stenosis (AS) assessment. However, the symptoms are often subjective, and LVEF is not a sensitive marker of left ventricle (LV) decompensation. Over the past years, the cardiac structure and function research on AS has increased due to advanced imaging modalities and potential therapies. New imaging parameters emerged as predictors of disease progression in AS. LV global longitudinal strain has proved useful for risk stratification in asymptomatic severe AS patients with preserved LVEF. The assessment of myocardial fibrosis by cardiac magnetic resonance is the most studied application and offers prognostic information on AS. Moreover, the usage of biomarkers in AS as objective measures of LV decompensation has recently gained more interest. The present review focuses on the transition from compensatory LV hypertrophy (H) to LV dysfunction and the biomarkers associated with myocardial wall stress, fibrosis, and myocyte death. Moreover, we discuss the potential impact of non-invasive imaging parameters for optimizing the timing of aortic valve replacement and provide insight into novel biomarkers for possible prognostic use in AS. However, data from randomized clinical trials are necessary to define their utility in daily practice.

Multimodality Imaging in Aortic Stenosis: Beyond the Valve - Focusing on the Myocardium

Current guidelines of aortic stenosis (AS) management focus on valve parameters, LV systolic dysfunction, and symptoms; however, emerging data suggest that there may be benefit of aortic valve replacement before it becomes severe by present criteria. Myocardial assessment using novel multimodality imaging techniques exhibits subclinical myocardial injury and remodeling at various stages before guideline-directed interventions, which predicts adverse outcomes. This raises the question of whether implementing serial myocardial assessment should become part of the standard appraisal, thereby identifying high-risk patients aiming to minimize adverse outcomes.

Is "moderate" aortic stenosis still the right name? A review of the literature

Current guidelines recommend aortic valve replacement for symptomatic or selected asymptomatic high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis. Conversely, a watchful waiting attitude applies to patients with moderate aortic stenosis, regardless of their risk profile and symptoms, until the echocardiographic thresholds of severe aortic stenosis are reached. This strategy is based on data reporting high mortality in untreated severe symptomatic aortic stenosis, whereas moderate aortic stenosis has always been perceived as a non-threatening condition, with a benefit-risk balance against surgery. Meanwhile, numerous studies have reported a worrying event rate in these patients, surgical techniques and outcomes have improved significantly and the use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement has become more widespread and extended to lower-risk patients, leaving this strategy open to question, especially for patients with moderate aortic stenosis and left ventricular dysfunction. In this review, we summarize the current state of knowledge about moderate aortic stenosis progression and prognosis. We also discuss the particular case of moderate aortic stenosis associated with left ventricular dysfunction, and the ongoing trials that that might change our paradigm for the management of this "moderate" valvular heart disease.

Aortic Valve Disease, Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement, and the Heart Failure Patient: A State-of-the-Art Review

Concomitant aortic stenosis (AS) in heart failure (HF) is associated with high rates of mortality and morbidity. Current guidelines recommend aortic valve replacement in patients with severe symptomatic AS and asymptomatic AS with left ventricular ejection fraction <50% and during other cardiac surgeries. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has now allowed for the treatment of severe AS in previously inoperable or high-surgical-risk patients. Leveraging multimodality imaging techniques is increasingly recognized for reinforcing the rationale for intervening early, thus mitigating the risk of ongoing progression to advanced HF. There are increasing data in favor of TAVR in diverse clinical scenarios, particularly asymptomatic AS and moderate AS. Limited information is, however, available regarding the advantages of HF medical therapy before and after intervention. This review aims to comprehensively examine the phenotypes of AS in the context of HF progression, while exploring the evolving role of TAVR in specific populations.

Impact of aortic valve replacement in symptomatic low-risk patients with less than severe aortic stenosis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR or SAVR) affects clinical and haemodynamic outcomes in symptomatic patients with moderately-severe aortic stenosis (AS).

METHODS

Echocardiographic evidence of severe AS for enrolment in the Evolut Low Risk trial was based on site-reported measurements. For this post hoc analysis, core laboratory measurements identified patients with symptomatic moderately-severe AS (1.0

RESULTS

Moderately-severe AS was identified in 113 out of 1414 patients (8%). Baseline AVA was 1.1±0.1 cm2, peak velocity 3.7±0.2 m/s, MG 32.7±4.8 mm Hg and aortic valve calcium volume 588 (364, 815) mm3. Valve haemodynamics improved following TAVR (AVA 2.5±0.7 cm2, peak velocity 1.9±0.5 m/s and MG 8.4±4.8 mm Hg; p<0.001 for all) and SAVR (AVA 2.0±0.6 cm2, peak velocity 2.1±0.4 m/s and MG 10.0±3.4 mm Hg; p<0.001 for all). At 24 months, the rates of death or disabling stroke were similar (TAVR 7.7% vs SAVR 6.5%; p=0.82). Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score assessing quality of life improved from baseline to 30 days after TAVR (67.0±20.6 to 89.3±13.4; p<0.001) and SAVR (67.5±19.6 to 78.3±22.3; p=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In symptomatic patients with moderately-severe AS, AVR appears to be beneficial. Determination of the clinical and haemodynamic profile of patients who can benefit from earlier isolated AVR needs further investigation in randomised clinical trials.

Collapse

Key Words

• Aortic Valve Stenosis
• Heart Valve Diseases
• Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Collapse

MESH Headings

• Humans
• Aortic Valve/diagnostic imaging
• Aortic Valve/surgery
• Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation/adverse effects
• Quality of Life
• Aortic Valve Stenosis/diagnostic imaging
• Aortic Valve Stenosis/surgery
• Aortic Valve Stenosis/etiology
• Treatment Outcome

Collapse

Grants

• UL1 TR001863 NCATS NIH HHS
• Medtronic

Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Saki Ito Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
Roger Laham Department of Cardiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Vuyisile T Nkomo Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
John K Forrest Department of Internal Medicine (Cardiology), Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
Michael J Reardon Departments of Cardiology and Cardiothoracic Surgery, Houston Methodist Debakey Heart and Vascular Center, Houston, Texas, USA
Stephen H Little Departments of Cardiology and Cardiothoracic Surgery, Houston Methodist Debakey Heart and Vascular Center, Houston, Texas, USA
Mubashir Mumtaz Departments of Cardiothoracic Surgery and Interventional Cardiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Pinnacle Health, Wormsleyburg, Pennsylvania, USA
Hemal Gada Departments of Cardiothoracic Surgery and Interventional Cardiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Pinnacle Health, Wormsleyburg, Pennsylvania, USA
Tanvir Bajwa Aurora Cardiovascular and Thoracic Services, Aurora Saint Luke's Medical Center, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
David Langholz Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Spectrum Health, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
John Heiser Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Spectrum Health, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
Atul Chawla Department of Cardiology, Mercy Medical Center, IA, Mercy Medical Center, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Bart Jenson Department of Cardiology, Mercy Medical Center, IA, Mercy Medical Center, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Guilherme Attizanni Harrington Heart & Vascular Institute, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Alan H Markowitz Harrington Heart & Vascular Institute, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Jian Huang Structural Heart and Aortic, Medtronic Inc, Mounds View, Minnesota, USA
Jae K Oh Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA

Collapse

Influence of fasting plasma glucose-lowering rate on BNP levels in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with coronary microcirculation dysfunction

AIM

The aim was to analyze the influence of fasting plasma glucose-lowering rate (FPGLR) on plasma BNP levels in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients with coronary microcirculation dysfunction (CMD) and to determine the optimal FPGLR for these patients.

METHODS

A total of 170 T2DM patients who received intensive glucose-lowering therapy during hospitalization in the First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University were enrolled. Ninety-two patients with CMD and 78 patients without CMD were assigned to a study and a control group, respectively. The study group was stratified as S1 (4.1 ~ 6.0 mmol·L^-1·day^-1), S2 (2.1 ~ 4.0 mmol·L^-1·day^-1), and S3 (≤ 2.0 mmol·L^-1·day^-1) by different FPGLR, and the same in the control group (C1, C2, and C3). The plasma BNP levels with the same FPGLR were compared between the study and the control group, and patients with a different FPGLR in the study group were also compared.

RESULTS

In the study and the control group, the BNP level in S1 was significantly higher than that in C1 (87 vs. 12 pg/ml, P < 0.001), although there was no significant difference between S2 and C2, S3 and C3. In the study group, the BNP level in S1 was significantly higher than that in S2 (87 vs. 22 pg/ml, P < 0.001) and S3 (87 vs. 15 pg/ml, P < 0.001), but there was no significant difference between S2 and S3.

CONCLUSION

Rapid intensive glucose-lowering may lead to increased plasma BNP levels in T2DM patients with CMD. Optimal FPGLR for these patients was determined to be no more than 4.0 mmol·L^-1·day^-1.

Managing Patients With Moderate Aortic Stenosis

Current guidelines recommend that clinical surveillance for patients with moderate aortic stenosis (AS) and aortic valve replacement (AVR) may be considered if there is an indication for coronary revascularization. Recent observational studies, however, have shown that moderate AS is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events and mortality. Whether the increased risk of adverse events is caused by associated comorbidities, or to the underlying moderate AS itself, is incompletely understood. Similarly, which patients with moderate AS need close follow-up or could potentially benefit from early AVR is also unknown. In this review, the authors provide a comprehensive overview of the current literature on moderate AS. They first provide an algorithm that helps to diagnose moderate AS correctly, especially when discordant grading is observed. Although the traditional focus of AS assessment has been on the valve, it is increasingly acknowledged that AS is not only a disease of the aortic valve but also of the ventricle. The authors therefore discuss how multimodality imaging can help to evaluate the left ventricular remodeling response and improve risk stratification in patients with moderate AS. Finally, they summarize current evidence on the management of moderate AS and highlight ongoing trials on AVR in moderate AS.

Left ventricular hypertrophy, diastolic dysfunction and right ventricular load predict outcome in moderate aortic stenosis

Aims

Predictors of progression of moderate aortic valve stenosis (AS) are incompletely understood. The objective of this study was to evaluate the prognostic value of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), diastolic dysfunction, and right ventricular (RV) load in moderate AS.

Methods and results

Moderate AS was defined by aortic valve area (AVA), peak transvalvular velocity (V_max) or mean pressure gradient (PG_mean). A total of 131 Patients were divided into two groups according to the number of pathophysiological changes (LVH, diastolic dysfunction with increased LV filling pressures and/or RV load): <2 (group 1); ≥2 (group 2). The primary outcome was survival without aortic valve replacement (AVR). After follow-up of 30 months, the reduction of AVA (-0.06 ± 0.16 vs. -0.24 ± 0.19 cm², P < 0.001), the increase of PG_mean (2.89 ± 6.35 vs 6.29 ± 7.13 mmHg, P < 0.001) and the decrease of the global longitudinal strain (0.8 ± 2.56 vs. 1.57 ± 3.42%, P < 0.001) from baseline to follow-up were significantly more pronounced in group 2. Survival without AVR was 82% (group 1) and 56% (group 2) [HR 3.94 (1.74-8.94), P < 0.001]. Survival without AVR or progression of AS was 77% (group 1) and 46% (group 2) [HR 3.80 (1.84-7.86), P < 0.001]. The presence of ≥2 pathophysiological changes predicted outcome whereas age, comorbidities, LDL-cholesterol did not.

Conclusion

The presence of ≥2 pathophysiological changes is a strong predictor of outcome in moderate AS and may be useful for risk stratification, particularly for scheduling follow-up time intervals and deciding the timing of AVR.

Association of Annual N-Terminal Pro-Brain Natriuretic Peptide Measurements With Clinical Events in Patients With Asymptomatic Nonsevere Aortic Stenosis: A Post Hoc Substudy of the SEAS Trial

IMPORTANCE

Recent studies have questioned the presumed low-risk status of patients with asymptomatic nonsevere aortic stenosis (AS). Whether annual N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) measurements are useful for risk assessment is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the association of annual NT-proBNP measurements with clinical outcomes in patients with nonsevere AS.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Analysis of annual NT-proBNP concentrations in the multicenter, double-blind Simvastatin and Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis (SEAS) randomized clinical trial was performed. SEAS was conducted from January 6, 2003, to April 1, 2008. Blood samples were analyzed in 2016, and data analysis was performed from February 10 to October 10, 2021. SEAS included 1873 patients with asymptomatic AS not requiring statin therapy with transaortic maximal flow velocity from 2.5 to 4.0 m/s and preserved ejection fraction. This substudy included 1644 patients (87.8%) with available blood samples at baseline and year 1.

EXPOSURES

Increased age- and sex-adjusted NT-proBNP concentrations at year 1 and a 1.5-fold or greater relative NT-proBNP concentration change from baseline to year 1. Moderate AS was defined as baseline maximal flow velocity greater than or equal to 3.0 m/s.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Aortic valve events (AVEs), which are a composite of aortic valve replacement, cardiovascular death, or incident heart failure due to AS progression, were noted. Landmark analyses from year 1 examined the association of NT-proBNP concentrations with outcomes.

RESULTS

Among 1644 patients, 996 were men (60.6%); mean (SD) age was 67.5 (9.7) years. Adjusted NT-proBNP concentrations were within the reference range (normal) in 1228 of 1594 patients (77.0%) with NT-proBNP values available at baseline and in 1164 of 1644 patients (70.8%) at year 1. During the next 2 years of follow-up, the AVE rates per 100 patient-years for normal vs increased adjusted NT-proBNP levels at year 1 were 1.39 (95% CI, 0.86-2.23) vs 7.05 (95% CI, 4.60-10.81) for patients with mild AS (P < .01), and 10.38 (95% CI, 8.56-12.59) vs 26.20 (95% CI, 22.03-31.15) for those with moderate AS (P < .01). Corresponding all-cause mortality rates were 1.05 (95% CI, 0.61-1.81) vs 4.17 (95% CI, 2.42-7.19) for patients with mild AS (P < .01), and 1.60 (95% CI, 0.99-2.57) vs 4.78 (95% CI, 3.32-6.87) for those with moderate AS (P < .01). In multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models, the combination of a 1-year increased adjusted NT-proBNP level and 1.5-fold or greater NT-proBNP level change from baseline was associated with the highest AVE rates in both patients with mild AS (hazard ratio, 8.12; 95% CI, 3.53-18.66; P < .001) and those with moderate AS (hazard ratio, 4.05; 95% CI, 2.84-5.77; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this study suggest that normal NT-proBNP concentrations at 1-year follow-up are associated with low AVE and all-cause mortality rates in patients with asymptomatic nonsevere AS. Conversely, an increased 1-year NT-proBNP level combined with a 50% or greater increase from baseline may be associated with high AVE rates.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00092677.

Aortic Stenosis: New Insights in Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prevention

There has been an explosion of diagnostic, prognostic, and treatment data in aortic stenosis (AS). Severity of AS should be based not only on valve hemodynamics, but underlying LV dysfunction and comorbidities. Indications for aortic valve replacement continue to evolve, extending to patients with less than severe AS. There are several trials to find a medical therapy to reduce the progression of AS. An application of artificial intelligence and clinical trial results will have a major impact in identifying asymptomatic patients and optimal treatment to the right patient at the right time.

Aortic stenosis (AS) is one of the most common valvular heart diseases and the number of patients with AS is expected to increase globally as the older population is growing fast. Since the majority of patients are elderly, AS is no longer a simple valvular heart disease of left ventricular outflow obstruction but is accompanied by other cardiac and comorbid conditions. Because of the significant variations of the disease, identifying patients at high risk and even earlier detection of patients with AS before developing symptomatic severe AS is becoming increasingly important. With the proven of efficacy and safety of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in the severe AS population, there is a growing interest in applying TAVR in those with less than severe AS. A medical therapy to reduce or prevent the progression in AS is actively investigated by several randomized control trials. In this review, we will summarize the most recent findings in AS and discuss potential future management strategies of patients with AS.

Cardiac Remodeling and Disease Progression in Patients With Repaired Coarctation of Aorta and Aortic Stenosis

BACKGROUND

Valvulo-arterial impedance (Zva) is used for assessment of left ventricular (LV) global pressure load in patients with aortic stenosis (AS) and impaired arterial compliance. Because patients with repaired coarctation of aorta (COA) have impaired arterial compliance, we hypothesized that COA patients with greater than or equal to moderate AS (AS-COA group) will have higher Zva, symptomatic progression, and cardiovascular events, as compared to non-COA patients with similar AS severity (AS group).

METHODS

Propensity matching (1:1) of 71 AS-COA and 71 AS patients based on age, sex, body mass index, and aortic valve mean gradient (cohort 1). Of 172 patients, 117 patients (AS-COA [n=62]; AS [n=55]) underwent aortic valve replacement, cohort 2. Cohort 1 was used to assess the relationship between preoperative Zva, cardiac remodeling, and symptomatic progression, while cohort 2 was used to assess the relationship between postoperative Zva, LV mass index regression (reduction in LV mass index after aortic valve replacement), and cardiovascular events.

RESULTS

The AS-COA group had higher Zva (4.2±0.6 versus 3.5±0.4 mm Hg/mL·m², P<0.001), more advanced cardiac remodeling, and higher 5-year incidence of symptomatic progression (85% versus 51%, P<0.001). Preoperative Zva was independently associated with cardiac remodeling (r=0.66, P<0.001) and symptomatic progression (hazard ratio, 1.06 [1.02-1.10], per mm Hg/mL·m² increase in Zva). The AS-COA group had higher postoperative Zva (3.3±0.5 versus 2.4±0.4 mm Hg/mL·m², P<0.001), less robust LV mass index regression at 1-year post-aortic valve replacement, and higher 5-year incidence of cardiovascular events. Postoperative Zva was independently associated with LV mass index regression (r=-0.46, P<0.001) and cardiovascular events (hazard ratio, 1.06 [1.02-1.10], per mm Hg/mL·m² increase in Zva).

CONCLUSIONS

Adults with AS-COA had higher LV global pressure load, cardiac remodeling, symptomatic progression, and cardiovascular events as compared to non-COA patients with similar severity of AS. Zva can identify patients at risk for adverse outcomes, and perhaps should be used for risk stratification with regards to timing of aortic valve replacement.

The Association of Moderate Aortic Stenosis with Poor Survival is Modified by Age and Left Ventricular Function

BACKGROUND

Data on the independent association of moderate aortic stenosis (AS) with excess mortality, even when it does not progress to severe AS, is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association of moderate AS with poor survival and to identify clinically important modifiers of that association.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent echocardiographic evaluation between 2007 and 2019. All-cause mortality and cancer data were available for all patients from national registries. Cox regression survival models were applied with censoring of patients who developed metastatic cancer, developed > moderate AS, or underwent aortic valve intervention during follow-up.

RESULTS

The study population included 92,622 patients. There were 2,202 (2%) patients with moderate AS, with a median age of 79 (IQR 70-85), of whom 1,254(57%) were men. During follow-up of 5 (IQR 3-8) years, 19,712 (21%) patients died. The cumulative probability of death at 5 years was higher for moderate AS patients (46% vs. 18% respectively, p Log-rank < .001). Propensity score matching analysis (N=2,896) that included clinical, laboratory, and echocardiographic predictors of poor survival demonstrated that compared with ≤ mild AS, patients with moderate AS were 17% more likely to die (95% CI 1.04-1.30, p = 0.007). Moreover, the model showed that the moderate AS associated risk was ejection fraction (EF) and age-dependent with a more pronounced association among non-octogenarian patients and patients with reduced EF (p for interaction .001 and .016 respectively).

CONCLUSION

Moderate AS is independently associated with excess mortality, even when it does not progress to severe AS. The associated risk is more pronounced among patients with reduced EF and patients younger than 80 years.

Alendronate slows down aortic stenosis progression in osteoporotic patients: An observational prospective study

Background:

Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most common primary valvular disease. Currently, there is no pharmacological approach for the medical management of AS. We investigated the effect of osteoporosis therapy with alendronate on hemodynamic progression in patients concurrently affected by AS and osteoporosis.

Materials and Methods:

In this observational prospective study, we enrolled 37 women more than 60 years old with diagnosis of AS and concurrent osteoporosis from August 2017 to December 2019. These patients were treated with alendronate 70 mg every week added to their routine treatment for AS, and their outcomes were compared with 33 patients only affected by AS. Echocardiographic changes and N-terminal-prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-pro-BNP) level were evaluated during about 2 years of follow-up.

Results:

The mean follow-up time for the treated and nontreated groups was 20.89 ± 2.73 and 20.84 ± 2.76 months, respectively. Mean gradient (P = 0.02) and peak gradient (P = 0.04) of aortic valve were significantly different between the groups after follow-up. Aortic valve area was decreased 0.09 cm² in the treated group by alendronate and 0.23 cm² in the other group (P = 0.001). Furthermore, NT-pro-BNP was significantly decreased in patients treated by alendronate (P = 0.01), but it was increased in nontreated patients (P = 0.04).

Conclusion:

Treatment with alendronate in patients with AS and concurrent osteoporosis slows down the progression of stenosis and improves their prognosis. This study could open a new pathway for the treatment of AS. Further studies, particularly randomized controlled clinical trial, should be done for providing more evidence.