Early surgery versus conventional treatment in asymptomatic very severe aortic stenosis

Paradoxical prognostic impact of severe aortic stenosis following trans-catheter aortic valve implantation

BACKGROUND

Aortic valve replacement is recommended for patients with "very severe" aortic stenosis (AS), irrespective of symptomatic manifestation. Nonetheless, the prognostic ramifications of "very severe" AS, as opposed to "severe" AS, subsequent to trans-catheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remain enigmatic.

METHODS

We enrolled consecutive patients who received TAVI at our institute between May 2015 and April 2021. We scrutinized the impact of baseline "very severe" AS upon 3-year all-cause death or heart failure hospitalization following TAVI, in comparison to "severe" AS.

RESULTS

A total of 239 patients (84.8 ± 5.4 years old, 58 men) were included. Baseline "very severe" AS was observed in 65 (27 %) patients, who exhibited more advanced hypertrophy and higher B-type natriuretic peptide levels compared to those with "severe" AS (p < 0.05 for both). Baseline "very severe" AS was paradoxically associated with higher freedom from the primary endpoint following TAVI compared to those with "severe" AS (p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of baseline "very severe" AS was paradoxically associated with improved clinical outcomes subsequent to TAVI, in contrast to the cases of "severe" AS.

2023 Korean Society of Echocardiography position paper for diagnosis and management of valvular heart disease, part I: aortic valve disease

This manuscript represents the official position of the Korean Society of Echocardiography on valvular heart diseases. This position paper focuses on the clinical management of valvular heart diseases with reference to the guidelines recently published by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and the European Society of Cardiology. The committee tried to reflect the recently published results on the topic of valvular heart diseases and Korean data by a systematic literature search based on validity and relevance. In part I of this article, we will review and discuss the current position of aortic valve disease in Korea.

Natural history of initially asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis: a one-stage meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines on the management strategy for patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) remain unclear. This uncertainty stems from the lack of data regarding the natural history of these patients. To address this gap, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis examining the natural history of asymptomatic severe AS patients receiving conservative treatment.

METHODS

The PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases were searched from inception to 24 January 2024 using the keywords "asymptomatic" AND "aortic" AND "stenosis". We included studies examining patients with asymptomatic severe AS. In interventional trials, only data from conservatively managed arms were collected. A one-stage meta-analysis was conducted using individual patient data reconstructed from published Kaplan-Meier curves. Sensitivity analysis was performed for major adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients who remained asymptomatic throughout follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 46 studies were included (n = 9545). The median time to the development of symptoms was 1.11 years (95% CI 0.90-1.53). 49.36% (40.85-58.59) of patients who were asymptomatic had suffered a major adverse cardiovascular event by 5 years. The median event-free time for heart failure hospitalization (HFH) was 5.50 years (95% CI 5.14-5.91) with 36.34% (95% CI 33.34-39.41) of patients experiencing an HFH by year 5. By 5 years, 79.81% (95% CI 69.26-88.58) of patients developed symptoms (angina, dyspnoea, syncope and others) and 12.36% (95% CI 10.01-15.22) of patients died of cardiovascular causes. For all-cause mortality, the median survival time was 9.15 years (95% CI 8.50-9.96) with 39.43% (CI 33.41-36.40) of patients dying by 5 years. The median time to AVR was 4.77 years (95% CI 4.39-5.17), with 52.64% (95% CI 49.85-55.48) of patients requiring an AVR by 5 years.

CONCLUSION

Our results reveal poor cardiovascular outcomes for patients with asymptomatic severe AS on conservative treatment. A significant proportion eventually requires an AVR. Further research is needed to determine if early intervention with AVR is more effective than conservative treatment.

Pathological Mechanism and Treatment of Calcified Aortic Stenosis

Calcified aortic stenosis (AS) is one of the most common valvular heart diseases worldwide, characterized by progressive fibrocalcific remodeling and thickening of the leaflets, which ultimately leads to obstruction of blood flow. Its pathobiology is an active and complicated process, involving endothelial cell dysfunction, lipoprotein deposition and oxidation, chronic inflammation, phenotypic transformation of valve interstitial cells, neovascularization, and intravalvular hemorrhage. To date, no targeted drug has been proven to slow down or prevent disease progression. Aortic valve replacement is still the optimal treatment of AS. This article reviews the etiology, diagnosis, and management of calcified aortic stenosis and proposes novel potential therapeutic targets.

Asymptomatic Aortic Stenosis: From Risk Stratification to Treatment

Our understanding of the natural history of aortic stenosis has significantly increased over the last decade. There have been considerable advances in the diagnosis and risk stratification of patients with aortic stenosis and in surgical and anesthetic techniques. In addition, transcatheter aortic valve replacement has established itself as a viable alternative to surgical management. Inevitably, these developments have raised questions regarding the merits of waiting for symptom onset in asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis before offering treatment. Recent observational and randomized trial data suggest that early intervention in asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis and normal left ventricular function may confer a prognostic advantage to a watchful waiting strategy. In this review, we highlight advances in the management and risk stratification of patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis with particular consideration of recent findings supporting early valvular intervention.

Quantifying the Survival Loss Linked to Late Therapeutic Indication in High-Gradient Severe Aortic Stenosis

Background

International guidelines recommend aortic valve replacement (AVR) as Class I triggers in high-gradient severe aortic stenosis (HGSAS) patients with symptoms and/or left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <50%. The association between waiting for these triggers and postoperative survival penalty is poorly studied.

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of guideline-based Class I triggers on long-term postoperative survival in HGSAS patients.

Methods

2,030 patients operated for HGSAS were included and classified as follows: no Class I triggers (no symptoms and LVEF >50%, n = 853), symptoms with LVEF >50% (n = 965), or LVEF <50% regardless of symptoms (n = 212). Survival was compared after matching (inverse probability weighting) for clinical differences. Restricted mean survival time was analyzed to quantify lifetime loss.

Results

Ten-year survival was better without any Class I trigger than with symptoms or LVEF <50% (67.1% ± 3% vs 56.4% ± 3% vs 53.1% ± 7%, respectively, P < 0.001). Adjusted death risks increased significantly in operated patients with symptoms (HR: 1.45 [95% CI: 1.15-1.82]) or LVEF <50% (HR: 1.47 [95% CI: 1.05-2.06]) than in those without Class I triggers. Performing AVR with LVEF >60% produced similar outcomes to that of the general population, whereas operated patients with LVEF <60% was associated with a 10-year postoperative survival penalty. Furthermore, according to restricted mean survival time analyses, operating on symptomatic patients or with LVEF <60% led to 8.3- and 11.4-month survival losses, respectively, after 10 years, compared with operated asymptomatic patients with a LVEF >60%.

Conclusions

Guideline-based Class I triggers for AVR in HGSAS have profound consequences on long-term postoperative survival, suggesting that HGSAS patients should undergo AVR before trigger onset. Operating on patients with LVEF <60% is already associated with a 10-year postoperative survival penalty questioning the need for an EF threshold recommending AVR in HGSAS patients.

Design and rationale of the evaluation of transcatheter aortic valve replacement compared to surveillance for patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis: The EARLY TAVR trial

BACKGROUND

For patients with asymptomatic, severe aortic stenosis (AS) and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, current guidelines recommend clinical surveillance every 6 to 12 months. To date, no randomized trials have examined whether an early intervention with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) will improve outcomes among these patients.

STUDY DESIGN AND OBJECTIVES

EARLY TAVR is a prospective, randomized, controlled, and multicenter trial, with an event-based design. Asymptomatic severe AS patients (n = 900) are randomized 1:1 to either clinical surveillance or TAVR with the Edwards SAPIEN 3/SAPIEN 3 Ultra transcatheter heart valve. Patients are stratified by whether they are able to perform a treadmill stress test. The primary end point is death, stroke, or unplanned cardiovascular hospitalization. Patients who are asymptomatic but have a positive stress test will be followed in a registry and undergo aortic valve replacement as per current guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

EARLY TAVR is the largest randomized trial to date assessing the role of early intervention among patients with asymptomatic severe AS compared to clinical surveillance and the first to study the role of TAVR.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03042104.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of early aortic valve replacement versus conservative therapy in patients with asymptomatic aortic valve stenosis with preserved left ventricle systolic function

BACKGROUND

A quarter of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) were asymptomatic, and only a third of them survived at the end of 4 years. Only a select subset of these patients was recommended for aortic valve replacement (AVR) by the current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines. We intended to study the effect of early AVR (eAVR) in this subset of asymptomatic patients with preserved left ventricle function.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched PubMed and Embase for randomised and observational studies comparing the effect of eAVR versus conservative therapy in patients with severe, asymptomatic AS and normal left ventricular function. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes were composite major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (study defined), myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, cardiac death, sudden death, the development of symptoms, heart failure hospitalisations and major bleeding. We used GRADEPro to assess the certainty of the evidence. In the randomised controlled trial (RCT) only analysis, we found no significant difference in all-cause mortality between the early aortic intervention group versus the conservative arm (CA) (incidence rate ratio, IRR (CI): 0.5 (0.2 to 1.1), I2=31%, p=0.09). However, in the overall cohort, we found mortality benefit for eAVR over CA (IRR (CI): 0.4 (0.3 to 0.7), I2=84%, p<0.01). There were significantly lower MACE, cardiac death, sudden death, development of symptoms and heart failure hospitalisations in the eAVR group. We noticed no difference in MI, stroke and major bleeding.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that there is no reduction in all-cause mortality in the eAVR arm in patients with asymptomatic AS with preserved ejection fraction. However, eAVR reduces heart failure related hospitalisations and death or heart failure hospitalisations.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022306132.

Clinical outcomes after aortic valve replacement with severe stenosis of trileaflet aortic valve and low valve calcium score

BACKGROUND

Some patients have severe aortic valve stenosis (AS) despite a lower degree of aortic valve calcification (AVC). This study compared the clinical features and prognosis of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) for severe AS with a low AVC score compared with those with higher AVC scores.

METHODS

This study included 1002 Korean patients with symptomatic severe degenerative AS who underwent AVR. We measured AVC score before AVR and defined low AVC as AVC score of <2000 units for male patients and <1300 units for female patients. Patients with bicuspid or rheumatic aortic valve disease were excluded.

RESULTS

The mean age was 75.6±7.9 years and 487 patients (48.6%) were female. Mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 59.4%±10.4%, and concomitant coronary revascularisation was performed in 96 patients (9.6%). The median aortic valve calcium score was 3122 units (IQR 2249-4289 units) among male patients and 1756 units (IQR 1192-2572) among female patients. A total of 242 patients (24.2%) had low AVC; they were significantly younger (73.5±8.7 years vs 76.3±7.5 years, p<0.001) and were more likely to be female (59.5% vs 45.1%, p<0.001) and on haemodialysis (5.4% vs 1.8%, p=0.006) than those with high AVC. During a follow-up (median: 3.8 years), the patients with low AVC had significantly higher risk of death from any cause (adjusted HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.52, p=0.04), mostly non-cardiac cause.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with low AVC exhibit distinct clinical characteristics and a higher risk of long-term mortality compared with those with high AVC.

Feasibility of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients With Very Severe Aortic Stenosis

Background: Very severe aortic stenosis (AS) has a poor prognosis even in asymptomatic patients, and asymptomatic very severe AS is a Class IIa indication for aortic valve replacement, although the safety and effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for very severe AS is not well-established. Methods and Results: This study included 366 patients undergoing TAVI at a single center, with 85 and 281 patients in the very severe AS (peak velocity ≥5 m/s or mean pressure gradient (PG) ≥60 mmHg) and severe AS groups, respectively. Procedural and clinical outcomes at 1-year follow-up were compared between groups. The calcium scores were significantly higher in the very severe AS group (2,864.5 vs. 1,405.8 arbitrary units [AU] (P<0.001). Although the patient-prosthesis mismatch rate was higher in the very severe AS group (38.3% vs. 25.7%; P=0.029), there was no significant difference in the early safety and clinical efficacy between the groups (16.5% vs. 17.1% and 12.0% vs. 18.9%, respectively). Similarly, there was no significant difference in all-cause mortality at 1 year (4.8% vs. 9.8%). Conclusions: Despite a higher incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch in those with very severe AS, the procedural and clinical outcomes were comparable to those in patients with severe AS. TAVI may be a reasonable treatment option for very severe AS.

Asymptomatic Severe and Moderate Aortic Stenosis: Time for Appraisal of Treatment Indications

Over the last decades, we have witnessed considerable improvements in diagnostics and risk stratification of patients with significant aortic stenosis (AS), paralleled by advances in operative and anesthetic techniques. In addition, accumulating evidence points to the potential benefit of early valve replacement in such patients prior to the onset of symptoms. In parallel, interventional randomized trials have proven the benefit of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in comparison to a surgical approach to valve replacement over a broad risk spectrum in symptomatic patients with AS. This article reviews contemporary management approaches and scrutinizes open questions regarding timing and mode of intervention in asymptomatic patients with severe AS. We also discuss the challenges surrounding the management of symptomatic patients with moderate AS as well as emerging dilemmas related to the concept of a life-long treatment strategy for patients with AS.

Echocardiographic Evaluation of Aortic Stenosis: A Comprehensive Review

Echocardiography represents the most important diagnostic tool in the evaluation of aortic stenosis. The echocardiographic assessment of its severity should always be performed through a standardized and stepwise approach in order to achieve a comprehensive evaluation. The latest technical innovations in the field of echocardiography have improved diagnostic accuracy, guaranteeing a better and more detailed evaluation of aortic valve anatomy. An early diagnosis is of utmost importance since it shortens treatment delays and improves patient outcomes. Echocardiography plays a key role also in the evaluation of all the structural changes related to aortic stenosis. Detailed evaluation of subtle and subclinical changes in left ventricle function has a prognostic significance: scientific efforts have been addressed to identify the most accurate global longitudinal strain cut-off value able to predict adverse outcomes. Moreover, in recent years the role of artificial intelligence is increasingly emerging as a promising tool able to assist cardiologists in aortic stenosis screening and diagnosis, especially by reducing the rate of aortic stenosis misdiagnosis.

Cardiovascular Calcification Heterogeneity in Chronic Kidney Disease

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) exhibit tremendously elevated risk for cardiovascular disease, particularly ischemic heart disease, due to premature vascular and cardiac aging and accelerated ectopic calcification. The presence of cardiovascular calcification associates with increased risk in patients with CKD. Disturbed mineral homeostasis and diverse comorbidities in these patients drive increased systemic cardiovascular calcification in different manifestations with diverse clinical consequences, like plaque instability, vessel stiffening, and aortic stenosis. This review outlines the heterogeneity in calcification patterning, including mineral type and location and potential implications on clinical outcomes. The advent of therapeutics currently in clinical trials may reduce CKD-associated morbidity. Development of therapeutics for cardiovascular calcification begins with the premise that less mineral is better. While restoring diseased tissues to a noncalcified homeostasis remains the ultimate goal, in some cases, calcific mineral may play a protective role, such as in atherosclerotic plaques. Therefore, developing treatments for ectopic calcification may require a nuanced approach that considers individual patient risk factors. Here, we discuss the most common cardiac and vascular calcification pathologies observed in CKD, how mineral in these tissues affects function, and the potential outcomes and considerations for therapeutic strategies that seek to disrupt the nucleation and growth of mineral. Finally, we discuss future patient-specific considerations for treating cardiac and vascular calcification in patients with CKD-a population in need of anticalcification therapies.

Early Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Conservative Management in Asymptomatic Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The merits of conservative management vs early intervention in patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis remains unknown. Digital databases (MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and Embase) were searched for all relevant studies from inception through September 2022. Studies comparing conservative management with early intervention were compared using a random-effects model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence interval (CI). A total of 12 studies comprising 3624 asymptomatic aortic stenosis patients (1747 receiving surgery, and 1877 receiving conservative treatment) were included in the analysis. The average follow-up time was 4.45 (IQR 3.5-5) years. Early intervention was associated with a significantly reduced risk of cardiac (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.25-0.72; P = 0.001; I² = 54%), non-cardiac (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.32-0.68; P < 0.0001; I² = 0%), all-cause mortality (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.32-0.51; P < 0.00001; I² = 58%), heart failure hospitalization (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.13-0.36; P < 0.00001; I² = 0%), sudden cardiac death (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.12-0.66; P = 0.004, I² = 24%), and MACE (RR 0.46, 95% CI; 0.28-0.75; P = 0.002; I² = 68%), compared with conservative management. There was no significant difference in the 30-day mortality (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.19-2.04; P = 0.44; I² = 28%), myocardial infarction (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.19-1.06; P = 0.07, I²=0%), and 90-day mortality (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.20-2.37; P = 0.55; I² = 61%) between the 2 groups. This meta-analysis shows statistically significant reductions in the risk for all-cause mortality, cardiac specific mortality, non-cardiac mortality, heart failure hospitalization, MACE, and sudden cardiac death among asymptomatic aortic stenosis patients who underwent early intervention as opposed to conservative management.

Heart failure and excess mortality after aortic valve replacement in aortic stenosis

INTRODUCTION

In aortic stenosis (AS), the heart transitions from adaptive compensation to an AS cardiomyopathy and eventually leads to decompensation with heart failure. Better understanding of the underpinning pathophysiological mechanisms is required in order to inform strategies to prevent decompensation.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we therefore aim to appraise the current pathophysiological understanding of adaptive and maladaptive processes in AS, appraise potential avenues of adjunctive therapy before or after AVR and highlight areas of further research in the management of heart failure post AVR.

EXPERT OPINION

Tailored strategies for the timing of intervention accounting for individual patient's response to the afterload insult are underway, and promise to guide better management in the future. Further clinical trials of adjunctive pharmacological and device therapy to either cardioprotect prior to intervention or promote reverse remodeling and recovery after intervention are needed to mitigate the risk of heart failure and excess mortality.

The fate of aortic valve after rheumatic mitral valve surgery

OBJECTIVE

Deterioration of the native aortic valve function by a late progression of rheumatic disease is not infrequent in patients who underwent rheumatic mitral valve surgery; however, this phenomenon has not been clearly quantified.

METHODS

A total of 1155 consecutive patients (age 52.0 ± 12.9 years; 807 female) who underwent rheumatic mitral valve surgery without concomitant aortic valve surgery from 1997 to 2015 were enrolled. The primary end point was the composite of progression to severe aortic valve dysfunction or a requirement of subsequent aortic valve replacements during follow-up. To determine the risk factors of the primary outcome, we performed the generalized linear mixed model.

RESULTS

The baseline severities of aortic valve were none to trivial in 880 patients (76.2%), mild in 256 patients (22.2%), and moderate in 19 patients (1.6%). The latest 1062 echocardiographic assessments (91.9%; median, 81.2 postoperative months; interquartile range, 37.3-132.1 months) demonstrated 26 cases (0.33%/patient-year) meeting the primary end point during follow-up. Cumulative incidence of the primary end point at 10 years was 0.4% ± 0.3% and 7.4% ± 2.5% depending on the presence of mild or greater aortic valve dysfunction at baseline (P < .01). In multivariable analyses, aortic valve peak pressure gradient (odds ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.20), aortic regurgitation degree (mild over none: odds ratio, 3.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-9.23), and time (odds ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval 1.19-1.41) were significantly associated with the occurrence of the primary end point.

CONCLUSIONS

Progression of severe aortic valve dysfunction and the need for aortic valve replacement are uncommon in patients undergoing rheumatic mitral valve surgery. However, such events were relatively common among those with mild or greater aortic valve dysfunction at the time of mitral valve surgery.

Early surgical intervention versus conservative management of asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Timing of intervention for patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) remains controversial. To compare the outcomes of early aortic valve replacement (AVR) versus watchful waiting (WW) in patients with asymptomatic severe AS.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases, in December 2021, for studies comparing early AVR with WW in the treatment of asymptomatic severe AS. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Twelve studies were included in which two were randomised clinical trials. A total of 4130 patients were included, providing a 1092 pooled death events. Our meta-analysis showed a significantly lower all-cause mortality for the early AVR compared with WW group, although with a high amount of heterogeneity between studies in the magnitude of the effect (pooled OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.45, p<0.01; I²=61%). An early surgery strategy displayed a significantly lower cardiovascular mortality (pooled OR 0.33; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.56, p<0.01; I²=64%) and heart failure hospitalisation (pooled OR 0.19; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.39, p<0.01, I²=7%). However, both groups had similar rates of stroke (pooled OR 1.30; 95% CI 0.73 to 2.29, p=0.36, I²=0%) and myocardial infarction (pooled OR 0.49; 95% CI 0.19 to 1.27, p=0.14, I²= 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that for patients with asymptomatic severe AS an early surgical intervention compared with a conservative WW strategy was associated with a lower heart failure hospitalisation and a similar rate of stroke or myocardial infarction, although with significant risk of bias.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021291144.

Growth Differentiation Factor-15 as a Predictor of Functional Capacity, Frailty, and Ventricular Dysfunction in Patients With Aortic Stenosis and Preserved Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction

In aortic stenosis (AS), left ventricular (LV) remodeling often occurs before symptom onset, and early intervention may be beneficial. Risk stratification remains challenging and identification of biomarkers may be useful. We evaluated the association between growth differentiation factor-15 (GDF-15) and soluble suppression of tumorigenicity 2 (sST2) and known markers of poor prognosis in AS. Baseline plasma GDF-15 and sST2 levels were measured in 70 patients with moderate-severe AS (aortic valve area <1.5 cm²) and preserved LV ejection fraction (>45%). Patients were categorized into "low GDF-15" versus "high GDF-15" and "low sST2" versus "high sST2" groups. Groups were compared for differences in cardiovascular risk factors, 6-minute walk test, 5 m gait speed, cognitive function (Montreal Cognitive Assessment), and echocardiographic parameters. Overall, 44% of patients were deemed asymptomatic by New York Heart Association class, 61% had severe AS (aortic valve area <1 cm²) and all patients had preserved LV ejection fraction. GDF-15 levels were not predictive of AS severity. However, high GDF-15 (>1,050 pg/ml) was associated with LV dysfunction as shown by lower indexed stroke volume (p <0.01), worse LV global longitudinal strain (p = 0.04), greater mean E/e' (p = 0.02) and indexed left atrial volume (p <0.01). It was also associated with decreased functional capacity with shorter 6-minute walk test (p = 0.01) and slower 5 m gait speed (p = 0.02). Associations between sST2 levels and markers of poor prognosis were less compelling. In this study of patients with moderate to severe AS, elevated GDF-15 levels are associated with impaired functional capacity, poorer performance on fragility testing, and LV dysfunction. In conclusion, GDF-15 may integrate these markers of adverse outcomes into a single biomarker of poor prognosis.

Early surgery vs conservative management among asymptomatic aortic stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Although aortic valve replacement in severe symptomatic Aortic Stenosis (AS) are clearly outlined, the role of surgical intervention in asymptomatic severe AS remains unclear with limited evidence. The aim of our meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of early surgical aortic valve repair compared to conservative management.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Embase and Cochrane databases for studies comparing the early surgery versus conservative management among asymptomatic aortic stenosis patients. Unadjusted odds ratios (OR) were pooled using a random-effect model, and a p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

A total of 5 articles (3 observational studies and 2 randomized controlled trials) were included. At a median followup of 4.1 years, here were significantly lower odds of all-cause mortality [OR = 0.30 (95 %CI:0.17-0.53), p < 0.0001], cardiovascular mortality [OR = 0.35 (95 %CI:(0.17-0.72), p = 0.005], and sudden cardiac death (OR = 0.36 (95 %CI: 0.15-0.89), p = 0.03) among early surgery group compared with conservative care. There was no significant difference between incidence of major bleeding, clinical thromboembolic events, hospitalization due to heart failure, stroke and myocardial infarction between the conservative care groups and early surgery.

Conclusion

Among asymptomatic patients with AS, early surgery shows better outcomes in reducing all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality compared with conservative management approaches.

Do all patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis need treatment?

INTRODUCTION

Although guidelines recommend a watchful waiting strategy for patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis, there have been considerable advancements in surgical and anaesthetic techniques along with the success of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (AVR) as a viable alternative to surgical AVR. Inevitably, these developments have raised questions as to whether or not there is still merit in waiting for symptoms to ensue before treatment may offered to these patients.

AREA COVERED

The principal purpose of this paper is to review the data supporting earlier intervention in patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis, and to project the implications these and other ongoing trials will have on indications for AVR in asymptomatic patients in the future.

EXPERT OPINION

The threshold for intervention in certain subgroups of asymptomatic patients with severe AS has already been lowered. The next frontier will inevitably be determining whether all patients with severe AS should undergo AVR irrespective of their symptomatic status.

Reconsidered surgical aortic valve replacement after declined transcatheter valve implantation

BACKGROUND

Outcomes for high surgical risk patients who declined transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and then reconsidered for conventional aortic valve replacement (rSAVR) for severe calcific aortic stenosis are not well known.

METHODS

This single-centre, case-control study (rSAVR vs Conservative group) retrospectively analysed patients for rSAVR (2009-2019). Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of composite of neurological sequelae/renal failure/deep sternal wound infection/re-exploration and death. Survival was compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank test. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine predictors of survival.

RESULTS

TAVI was denied in 519/1095 patients, 114(10.4%) had rSAVR (cases) and 405 (37%) were managed conservatively (controls). Mean age for rSAVR was 80 years (IQR: 73.5-85 years). The commonest reason for declining TAVI was prohibitive high risk due to multiple comorbidities. Among rSAVR, hospital mortality was 2.2% and stroke was 4.4%. Median follow-up was conservative; 14.4 months versus rSAVR; 34.8 months. Five-year survival was conservative; 12.6% versus rSAVR; and 59.5% (overall conservative; 38.0% vs. rSAVR; 60.5%, p < 0.001). rSAVR was protective (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.37, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.26, 0.51, p < 0.001) and high comorbidities had high hazard (HR: 1.57, 95% CI: 1.19, 2.07, p = 0.001). rSAVR had fewer hospital readmission episodes (Conservative; 13.6/patient-year vs. rSAVR; 6.9/patient-year, p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

rSAVR may be considered in high surgical risk elderly patients who have been declined TAVI in centres with low operative mortality. rSAVR may be superior to conservative management in carefully selected patients.

Identification of HIBCH as a Fatty Acid Metabolism-Related Biomarker in Aortic Valve Calcification Using Bioinformatics

Objective. To identify fatty acid metabolism-related biomarkers of aortic valve calcification (AVC) using bioinformatics and to research the role of immune cell infiltration for AVC. Methods. The AVC dataset was retrieved from the Gene Expression Omnibus database. R package is used for differential expression genes analysis and weighted gene coexpression analysis. The differentially coexpressed genes were identified by the Venn diagram, followed by Gene Ontology (GO) and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) enrichment analyses of differentially coexpressed genes. Functions closely related to AVC were identified by GO and KEGG enrichment analyses of differentially coexpressed genes. Genes related to fatty acid metabolism were retrieved from the Molecular Signatures Database (MSigDB) database. After removing duplicate genes, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression analysis, support vector machine recursive feature elimination (SVM-RFE), and random forest were applied to recognize biomarkers related to fatty acid metabolism in AVC. The CIBERSORT tool was used to analyze infiltration of immune cells in normal and AVC samples. Correlations between biomarkers and immune cells were calculated. Finally, HIBCH-related pathway was predicted by single-gene gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA). Results. 2416 differentially expressed genes and one coexpression module were identified. A total of 1473 differentially coexpressed genes were acquired. GO and KEGG enrichment analyses demonstrated that differentially coexpressed genes were closely related to fatty acid metabolism. LASSO regression analysis, SVM-REF, and random forest revealed that 3-hydroxyisobutyryl-CoA hydrolase (HIBCH) was a biomarker of fatty acid metabolism-related genes in AVC. Significant high levels of memory B cells were found in AVC than normal samples, while activated natural killer (NK) cells were significantly low in AVC than normal samples. A significantly positive relevance was observed between HIBCH and activated NK cells, regulatory T cells, monocytes, naïve B cells, activated dendritic cells, resting memory CD4 T cells, resting NK cells, and CD8 T cells. A significantly negative relevance was observed between HIBCH and activated memory CD4 T cells, memory B cells, neutrophils, gamma delta T cells, M0 macrophages, and plasma cells. The single-gene GSEA results suggest that HIBCH may work through the inhibition of multiple immune-related pathways. Conclusion. HIBCH is closely relevant to immune cell infiltration in AVC and could be applied as a diagnostic marker for AVC.

Acute Decompensated Aortic Stenosis: State of the Art Review

Aortic stenosis (AS) is a progressive disease that carries a poor prognosis. Patients are managed conservatively until satisfying an indication for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) based on AS severity and the presence of symptoms or adverse impact on the myocardium. Up to 1 in 3 TAVIs are performed for patients with acute symptoms of dyspnoea at rest, angina, and/or syncope - termed acute decompensated aortic stenosis (ADAS) and require urgent aortic valve replacement. These patients have longer hospital length of stay, undergo physical deconditioning, have a higher rate of acute kidney injury and mortality compared to stable patients with less severe symptoms. There is an urgent need to prevent ADAS and to deliver pathways to manage and improve ADAS-related outcomes. We provide here a contemporary review on epidemiological and pathophysiological aspects of ADAS, with a focus on the impact of ADAS from clinical and economic perspectives. We will offer also a global overview of the available evidence for treatment of ADAS and with priorities suggested for addressing current gaps in the literature and unmet clinical needs to improve outcomes for AS patients.

Sex differences in aortic stenosis: Identification of knowledge gaps for sex-specific personalized medicine

Objectives

This review summarizes sex-based differences in aortic stenosis (AS) and identifies knowledge gaps that should be addressed by future studies.

Background

AS is the most common valvular heart disease in developed countries. Sex-specific differences have not been fully appreciated, as a result of widespread under diagnosis of AS in women.

Summary

Studies including sex-stratified analyses have shown differences in pathophysiology with less calcification and more fibrosis in women's aortic valve. Women have impaired myocardial perfusion reserve and different compensatory response of the left ventricle (LV) to pressure overload, with concentric remodeling and more diffuse fibrosis, in contrast to men with more focal fibrosis and more dilated/eccentrically remodeled LV. There is sex difference in clinical presentation and anatomical characteristics, with women having more paradoxical low-flow/low-gradient AS, under-diagnosis and severity underestimated, with less referral to aortic valve replacement (AVR) compared to men. The response to therapies is also different: women have more adverse events with surgical AVR and greater survival benefit with transcatheter AVR. After AVR, women would have more favorable LV remodeling, but sex-related differences in changes in myocardial reserve flow need future research.

Conclusions

Investigation into these described sex-related differences in AS offers potential utility for improving prevention and treatment of AS in women and men. To better understand sex-based differences in pathophysiology, clinical presentation, and response to therapies, sex-specific critical knowledge gaps should be addressed in future research for sex-specific personalized medicine.

Focus on Diagnosis and Prognosis to Guide Timing of Intervention in Valvular Heart Disease

Purpose of Review

The present article reviews the role of multimodality imaging to improve risk stratification and timing of intervention in patients with valvular heart disease (VHD), and summarizes the latest developments in transcatheter valve interventions.

Recent Findings

Growing evidence suggests that intervention at an earlier stage may improve outcomes of patients with significant VHD. Multimodality imaging, including strain imaging and tissue characterization with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, has the ability to identify early markers of myocardial damage and can help to optimize the timing of intervention. Transcatheter interventions play an increasing role in the treatment of patients who remain at high surgical risk or present at a late stage of their disease.

Summary

Multimodality imaging identifies markers of cardiac damage at an early stage in the development of VHD. Together with technological innovations in the field of percutaneous valvular devices, these developments have the potential to improve current management and outcomes of patients with significant VHD.

Early Surgery for Patients With Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Guidelines provide class I recommendations for aortic valve intervention for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) or reduced ejection fraction, but the cornerstone of management for asymptomatic patients has been watchful waiting. This is based on historical nonrandomized data, but randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have now been performed of early surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for asymptomatic severe AS. We performed a meta-analysis of RCTs comparing early SAVR to watchful waiting for asymptomatic severe AS, focusing on individual end points of death and heart failure (HF) hospitalization.

Methods

We systematically identified all RCTs comparing early SAVR to watchful waiting in patients with asymptomatic severe AS and synthesized the data in a random-effects meta-analysis. The prespecified primary end point was all-cause mortality.

Results

Two trials randomizing 302 patients were included. Early SAVR lead to a 55% reduction in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.85; P = .014). There was no heterogeneity (I2 = 0.0%). Early SAVR also lead to a 79% reduction in HF hospitalization (hazard ratio, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.96; P = .044).

Conclusions

In patients with severe asymptomatic AS and normal ejection fraction, early SAVR reduces death and HF hospitalization compared to initial conservative management. This challenges current treatment standards and has implications for the clinical care of these patients and for guidelines.

Models and Techniques to Study Aortic Valve Calcification in Vitro, ex Vivo and in Vivo. An Overview

Aortic valve stenosis secondary to aortic valve calcification is the most common valve disease in the Western world. Calcification is a result of pathological proliferation and osteogenic differentiation of resident valve interstitial cells. To develop non-surgical treatments, the molecular and cellular mechanisms of pathological calcification must be revealed. In the current overview, we present methods for evaluation of calcification in different ex vivo, in vitro and in vivo situations including imaging in patients. The latter include echocardiography, scanning with computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Particular emphasis is on translational studies of calcific aortic valve stenosis with a special focus on cell culture using human primary cell cultures. Such models are widely used and suitable for screening of drugs against calcification. Animal models are presented, but there is no animal model that faithfully mimics human calcific aortic valve disease. A model of experimentally induced calcification in whole porcine aortic valve leaflets ex vivo is also included. Finally, miscellaneous methods and aspects of aortic valve calcification, such as, for instance, biomarkers are presented.

Current and new imaging techniques in risk stratification of asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis

Aortic stenosis (AS) is one of the most common valvular diseases in clinical practice. The prevalence of calcified AS with moderate or severe stenosis exceeds 2% after 75 years. The optimal timing of intervention for asymptomatic severe AS is uncertain and controversial. Identification of high-risk patients is based on echocardiographic parameters (left ventricular dysfunction, AS severity and progression), hemodynamic response to exercise, pulmonary hypertension, and elevated brain natriuretic peptides. However, early surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR), when compared to the watchful waiting approach, was associated with survival advantage. Moreover, new insights into pathophysiology of AS and advances in imaging modalities were helpful in the management of asymptomatic AS. In this report, we detail the potential role of echocardiography to guide timing of surgery and we discussed the use of early risk features based on recent imaging modalities.

Management of asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The management of severe aortic stenosis mandates consideration of aortic valve intervention for symptomatic patients. However, for asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis, recent randomised trials supported earlier intervention. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate all the available data comparing the two management strategies.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane and Web of Science databases were systematically searched from inception until 10 January 2022. The search key terms were 'asymptomatic', 'severe aortic stenosis' and 'intervention'.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis of two published randomised trials, AVATAR and RECOVERY, included 302 patients and showed that early intervention resulted in 55% reduction in all-cause mortality (HR=0.45, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.86; I2 0%) and 79% reduction in risk of hospitalisation for heart failure (HR=0.21, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.96; I2 15%). There was no difference in risk of cardiovascular death between the two groups (HR=0.36, 95% CI 0.03 to 3.78; I2 78%). Additionally, meta-analysis of eight observational studies showed improved mortality in patients treated with early intervention (HR=0.38, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.56; I2 77%).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis provides evidence that, in patients with severe asymptomatic aortic stenosis, early intervention reduces all-cause mortality and improves outcomes compared with conservative management. While this is very encouraging, further randomised controlled studies are needed to draw firm conclusions and identify the optimal timing of intervention.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022301037.

Outcomes in Patients With Asymptomatic Aortic Stenosis (from the Evolut Low Risk Trial)

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has comparable outcomes with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis, including those at low risk for surgery. Less is known about TAVI outcomes in asymptomatic patients. This analysis compares clinical, hemodynamic, and quality of life (QOL) outcomes after TAVI or SAVR for low-risk asymptomatic patients. The randomized Evolut Low Risk trial enrolled asymptomatic patients treated with TAVI (n = 76) and SAVR (n = 62). New York Heart Association functional class I identified patients without symptoms. Clinical outcomes, echocardiographic findings, and QOL in both groups were compared 30 days and 12 months after AVR. Asymptomatic patients had a mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 1.7 ± 0.6, 73% were men, and mean age was 74.2 ± 5.8 years. The composite end point of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke was similar at 12 months in patients with TAVI (1.3%) and SAVR (6.5%; p = 0.11), although patients with SAVR tended to have higher rates of all-cause mortality (4.8%) compared with patients with TAVI (0.0%, p = 0.05). Patients with TAVI had lower mean aortic valve gradients (8.1 ± 3.2 mm Hg) and larger mean effective orifice area (2.3 ± 0.6 mm Hg) than patients with SAVR (10.8 ± 3.8; p <0.001 and 1.9 ± 0.6; p = 0.001, respectively), and showed significant improvement in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores from baseline to 30 days (∆12.1 ± 23.6; p <0.001), whereas patients with SAVR did not (∆2.2 ± 20.3; p = 0.398). Patients with TAVI and SAVR had a significant improvement in QOL by 12 months compared with baseline. In conclusion, low risk asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis who underwent TAVI had comparable clinical outcomes to SAVR, with superior valve performance and faster QOL improvement.

Bioinformatics and Machine Learning Methods to Identify FN1 as a Novel Biomarker of Aortic Valve Calcification

Aim

The purpose of this study was to identify potential diagnostic markers for aortic valve calcification (AVC) and to investigate the function of immune cell infiltration in this disease.

Methods

The AVC data sets were obtained from the Gene Expression Omnibus. The identification of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) and the performance of functional correlation analysis were carried out using the R software. To explore hub genes related to AVC, a protein–protein interaction network was created. Diagnostic markers for AVC were then screened and verified using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator, logistic regression, support vector machine-recursive feature elimination algorithms, and hub genes. The infiltration of immune cells into AVC tissues was evaluated using CIBERSORT, and the correlation between diagnostic markers and infiltrating immune cells was analyzed. Finally, the Connectivity Map database was used to forecast the candidate small molecule drugs that might be used as prospective medications to treat AVC.

Results

A total of 337 DEGs were screened. The DEGs that were discovered were mostly related with atherosclerosis and arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease, according to the analyses. Gene sets involved in the chemokine signaling pathway and cytokine–cytokine receptor interaction were differently active in AVC compared with control. As the diagnostic marker for AVC, fibronectin 1 (FN1) (area the curve = 0.958) was discovered. Immune cell infiltration analysis revealed that the AVC process may be mediated by naïve B cells, memory B cells, plasma cells, activated natural killer cells, monocytes, and macrophages M0. Additionally, FN1 expression was associated with memory B cells, M0 macrophages, activated mast cells, resting mast cells, monocytes, and activated natural killer cells. AVC may be reversed with the use of yohimbic acid, the most promising small molecule discovered so far.

Conclusion

FN1 can be used as a diagnostic marker for AVC. It has been shown that immune cell infiltration is important in the onset and progression of AVC, which may benefit in the improvement of AVC diagnosis and treatment.

Valvulo-Arterial Impedance and Dimensionless Index for Risk Stratifying Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis

The hemodynamic effects of aortic stenosis (AS) consist of increased left ventricular (LV) afterload, reduced myocardial compliance, and increased myocardial workload. The LV in AS patients faces a double load: valvular and arterial loads. As such, the presence of symptoms and occurrence of adverse events in AS should better correlate with calculating the global burden faced by the LV in addition to the transvalvular gradient and aortic valve area (AVA). The valvulo-arterial impedance (Zva) is a useful parameter providing an estimate of the global LV hemodynamic load that results from the summation of the valvular and vascular loads. In addition to calculating the global LV afterload, it is paramount to estimate the stenosis severity accurately. In clinical practice, the management of low-flow low-gradient (LF-LG) severe AS with preserved LV ejection fraction requires careful confirmation of stenosis severity. In addition to the Zva, the dimensionless index (DI) is a very useful parameter to express the size of the effective valvular area as a proportion of the cross-section area of the left ventricular outlet tract velocity-time integral (LVOT-VTI) to that of the aortic valve jet (dimensionless velocity ratio). The DI is calculated by a ratio of the sub-valvular velocity obtained by pulsed-wave Doppler (LVOT-VTI) divided by the maximum velocity obtained by continuous-wave Doppler across the aortic valve (AV-VTI). In contrast to AVA measurement, the DI does not require the calculation of LVOT cross-sectional area, a major cause of erroneous assessment and underestimation of AVA. Hence, among patients with LG severe AS and preserved LV ejection fraction, calculation of DI in routine echocardiographic practice may be useful to identify a subgroup of patients at higher risk of mortality who may derive benefit from aortic valve replacement. This article aims to elucidate the Zva and DI in different clinical situations, correlate with the standard indexes of AS severity, LV geometry, and function, and thus prove to improve risk stratification and clinical decision making in patients with severe AS.

Timing of Intervention in Asymptomatic Patients with Aortic Stenosis

Aortic stenosis is a very common disease. Current guidelines recommend intervention mainly in symptomatic patients; aortic valve replacement can be considered in asymptomatic patients under specific conditions, but the evidence supporting these indications is poor. Continuous advances in both surgical and percutaneous techniques have substantially decreased rates of perioperative complications and mortality; with this in mind, many authors suggest that earlier intervention in patients with severe aortic stenosis, when they are still asymptomatic, may be indicated. This paper summarises what is known about the natural history of severe aortic stenosis and the scientific evidence available about the optimal timing for aortic valve replacement.

Outcomes in Patients With Obstructive Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy and Concomitant Aortic Stenosis Undergoing Surgical Myectomy and Aortic Valve Replacement

Background Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) and aortic stenosis can cause obstruction to the flow of blood out of the left ventricular outflow tract into the aorta, with obstructive HCM resulting in dynamic left ventricular outflow tract obstruction and moderate or severe aortic stenosis causing fixed obstruction caused by calcific degeneration. We sought to report the characteristics and longer-term outcomes of patients with severe obstructive HCM who also had concomitant moderate or severe aortic stenosis requiring surgical myectomy and aortic valve replacement. Methods and Results We studied 191 consecutive patients (age 67±6 years, 52% men) who underwent myectomy and aortic valve (AV) replacement (90% bioprosthesis) at our center between June 2002 and June 2018. Clinical and echo data including left ventricular outflow tract gradient and indexed AV area were recorded. The primary outcome was death. Prevalence of hypertension (63%) and hyperlipidemia (75%) were high, with a Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 5±4, and 70% of participants had no HCM-related sudden death risk factors. Basal septal thickness and indexed AV area were 1.9±0.4 cm and 0.72±0.2 cm²/m², respectively, while 100% of patients had dynamic left ventricular outflow tract gradient >50 mm Hg. At 6.5±4 years, 52 (27%) patients died (1.5% in-hospital deaths). One-, 2-, and 5-year survival in the current study sample was 94%, 91%, and 83%, respectively, similar to an age-sex-matched general US population. On multivariate Cox survival analysis, age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.65; 95% CI, 1.24-2.18), chronic kidney disease (HR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.21-2.32), and right ventricular systolic pressure on preoperative echocardiography (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.05-1.57) were associated with longer-term mortality, but traditional HCM risk factors did not. Conclusions In symptomatic patients with severely obstructive HCM and moderate or severe aortic stenosis undergoing a combined surgical myectomy and AV replacement at our center, the observed postoperative mortality was significantly lower than the expected mortality, and the longer-term survival was similar to a normal age-sex-matched US population.

Timing of Intervention in Asymptomatic Aortic Stenosis

The decision to perform an intervention for asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) requires careful weighing of the risks of early intervention against those of watchful observation, and the optimal timing of intervention remains controversial. With improvements in surgical and postoperative care, long-term survival after surgical aortic valve (AV) replacement (AVR) is excellent in low-risk patients, and the emergence of transcatheter AVR may change the thresholds for early preemptive intervention, although a durability issue has to be resolved. A watchful observation strategy also has a risk of sudden death, irreversible myocardial damage, and increase in operative risk while waiting for symptoms to develop. We have been waiting for a prospective randomized trial to solve the intense debate between early AVR and watchful observation, and the RECOVERY (Randomized Comparison of Early Surgery versus Conventional Treatment in Very Severe Aortic Stenosis) trial provides the evidence to support early AVR for asymptomatic severe AS. Risk assessment with severity of AS and staging classification may help to facilitate the identification of patients who may benefit from early intervention. Based on the results of the RECOVERY trial, early surgical AVR is reasonable for asymptomatic patients with very severe AS (aortic jet velocity ≥4.5 m/s) and low surgical risk. Further evidence is required to extend the indications of surgical AVR and to consider transcatheter AVR in asymptomatic patients with severe AS.

Diabetes Mellitus and Its Implications in Aortic Stenosis Patients

Aortic stenosis (AS) and diabetes mellitus (DM) are both progressive diseases that if left untreated, result in significant morbidity and mortality. Several studies revealed that the prevalence of DM is substantially higher in patients with AS and, thus, the progression from mild to severe AS is greater in those patients with DM. DM and common comorbidities associated with both diseases, DM and AS, increase patient management complexity and make aortic valve replacement the only effective treatment. For that reason, a better understanding of the pathogenesis underlying both these diseases and the relationships between them is necessary to design more appropriate preventive and therapeutic approaches. In this review, we provided an overview of the main aspects of the relationship between AS and DM, including common comorbidities and risk factors. We also discuss the established treatments/therapies in patients with AS and DM.

Does Surgical Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation Benefit Patients Undergoing Bioprosthetic Valve Replacement?

The benefit of avoiding lifelong anticoagulation therapy in patients with bioprosthetic heart valve implantation may potentially be offset by atrial fibrillation (AF); however, clinical impact of surgical AF ablation in such patients remains controversial. We enrolled 426 patients (aged 72.0 ± 7.8 years) with AF who underwent left-side valve replacement with bioprostheses between 2001 and 2018. Of these, 297 underwent concomitant surgical ablation (ablation group) and 129 underwent valve replacement alone (non-ablation group). Clinical outcomes were compared, and mortality was considered as a competing risk factor against valve-related complications. Inverse-probability weighting (IPTW) was adopted to reduce selection bias. The ablation group had lower baseline risk profiles than the non-ablation group. In crude analysis, early mortality rates were 3.4% and 7.0% in the ablation and non-ablation groups, respectively (P = 0.104). During follow-up (1521.9 patient-years), the ablation group showed lower AF-recurrence (P < 0.001) and anticoagulant medication rate (P = 0.021), and lower overall mortality risk (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42-0.94), but higher risk of permanent pacemaker implantation (SHR, 4.67; 95% CI, 1.36-16.05). No significant difference in the risk of stroke (SHR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.55-2.95) was observed between the groups. After baseline IPTW-adjustment, findings of the clinical outcomes were analogous to those from crude analyses. In patients undergoing bioprosthetic valve replacement, the addition of surgical ablation was associated with improved rhythm outcomes and survival but at the expense of a higher risk of pacemaker implantation. The underlying mechanism of improved survival by AF ablation needs further investigation.

Percutaneous versus Surgical Intervention for Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis: A Systematic Review

Aortic stenosis is a disease that is increasing in prevalence and manifests as decreased cardiac output, which if left untreated can result in heart failure and ultimately death. It is primarily a disease of the elderly who often have multiple comorbidities. The advent of transcatheter aortic valve therapies has changed the way we treat these conditions. However, long-term results of these therapies remain uncertain. Recently, there has been an increasing number of studies examining the role of both surgical aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve replacement. We therefore performed a systematic review using Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Two investigators searched papers published between January 1, 2007, and to date using the following terms: "aortic valve stenosis," "aortic valve operation," and "transcatheter aortic valve therapy." Both strategies in aortic stenosis treatment highlighted specific indications alongside the pitfalls such as structural valve degeneration and valve thrombosis which have a bearing on clinical outcomes. We propose some recommendations to help clinicians in the decision-making process as technological improvements make both surgical and transcatheter therapies viable options for patients with aortic stenosis. Finally, we assess the role of finite element analysis in patient selection for aortic valve replacement. THVT and AVR-S are both useful tools in the armamentarium against aortic stenosis. The decision between the two treatment strategies should be best guided by a strong robust evidence base, ideally with a long-term follow-up. This is best performed by the heart team with the patient as the center of the discussion.

Impact of arterio-ventricular interaction on first-phase ejection fraction in aortic stenosis

AIMS

First-phase ejection fraction (EF1), the EF at the time to peak aortic jet velocity, has been proposed as a novel marker of peak systolic function in aortic stenosis (AS). This study aimed to explore the association of myocardial contractility and arterial load with EF1 in AS patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Data from a prospective, cross-sectional study of 114 patients with mild, moderate, and severe AS with preserved left ventricular EF (>50%) were analysed. EF1 was measured as the volume change from end-diastole to the time that corresponded to peak aortic jet velocity. Myocardial contractility was assessed by strain rate measured by speckle tracking echocardiography. Arterial stiffness was assessed by central pulse pressure/stroke volume index ratio (PP/SVi). The total study population included 48% women, median age was 73 years, and mean peak aortic jet velocity was 3.47 m/s. In univariable linear regression analyses, lower EF1 was associated with higher age, higher peak aortic jet velocity, lower global EF, lower global longitudinal strain, lower strain rate, and higher PP/SVi. There was no significant association between EF1 and heart rate or sex. In multivariable linear regression analysis, EF1 was associated with lower strain rate and higher PP/SVi, independent of AS severity. Replacing PP/SVi by valvular impedance did not change the results.

CONCLUSION

In patients with AS, reduced myocardial contractility and increased arterial load were associated with lower EF1 independent of the severity of valve stenosis.

Echocardiographic assessment of aortic stenosis: a practical guideline from the British Society of Echocardiography

The guideline provides a practical step-by-step guide in order to facilitate high-quality echocardiographic studies of patients with aortic stenosis. In addition, it addresses commonly encountered yet challenging clinical scenarios and covers the use of advanced echocardiographic techniques, including TOE and Dobutamine stress echocardiography in the assessment of aortic stenosis.

A risk prediction model in asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis: CURRENT-AS risk score

AIMS

Early aortic valve replacement (AVR) might be beneficial in selected high-risk asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS), considering their poor prognosis when managed conservatively. This study aimed to develop and validate a clinical scoring system to predict AS-related events within 1 year after diagnosis in asymptomatic severe AS patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We analysed 1274 asymptomatic severe AS patients derived from a retrospective multicentre registry enrolling consecutive patients with severe AS in Japan (CURRENT AS registry), who were managed conservatively and completed 1-year follow-up without AVR. From a randomly assigned derivation set (N = 849), we developed CURRENT AS risk score for the AS-related event (a composite of AS-related death and heart failure hospitalization) within 1 year using a multivariable logistic regression model. The risk score comprised independent risk predictors including left ventricular ejection fraction <60%, haemoglobin ≤11.0 g/dL, chronic lung disease (2 points), diabetes mellitus, haemodialysis, and any concomitant valve disease (1 point). The predictive accuracy of the model was good with the area under the curve of 0.79 and 0.77 in the derivation and validation sets (N = 425). In the validation set, the 1-year incidence of AS-related events was much higher in patients with score ≥2 than in patients with score ≤1 (Score 0: 2.2%, Score 1: 1.9%, Score 2: 13.4%, Score 3: 14.3%, and Score ≥4: 22.7%, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The CURRENT-AS risk score integrating clinical and echocardiographic factors well-predicted the risk of AS-related events at 1 year in asymptomatic patients with severe AS and was validated internally.

Optimal Threshold of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction for Aortic Valve Replacement in Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

The optimal threshold of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) that should prompt aortic valve replacement (AVR) in asymptomatic patients with high‐gradient severe aortic stenosis (AS) is controversial. The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between LVEF and mortality benefit in comparing early AVR versus watchful waiting in asymptomatic patients with severe AS.

Methods and Results

MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched for observational studies and randomized controlled trials on adults with asymptomatic severe AS. Severe AS was defined by a peak aortic velocity ≥4 m/s and/or mean aortic valve gradient ≥40 mm Hg and/or calculated aortic valve area <1.0 cm² or an indexed valve area <0.6 cm². Studies comparing AVR with conservative management were included and meta‐analysis on all‐cause mortality was performed. Ten eligible studies were identified with a total of 3332 patients. In 5 observational studies comparing early AVR versus watchful waiting, our meta‐analysis showed early AVR was associated with lower mortality with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.41 (CI, 0.23–0.71; P<0.01). In 4 observational studies comparing AVR versus no AVR, our meta‐analysis showed AVR was associated with lower mortality with a HR of 0.31 (CI, 0.17–0.58; P<0.001). In a meta‐regression analysis pooling all 10 studies, there was no statistically significant correlation between study mean LVEF and the size of mortality benefit of AVR (P=0.83).

Conclusions

Among asymptomatic patients with high‐gradient severe AS, AVR was associated with a mortality benefit across the spectrum of LVEF. Our study calls into question the need of an LVEF threshold for recommending AVR in this patient population.