Reasons for Choosing Conservative Management in Symptomatic Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis - Observations From the CURRENT AS Registry

Cerebrovascular Disease Detected on Preprocedural Computed Tomography in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis Undergoing Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

There is a scarcity of data on the prevalence and clinical impact of cerebrovascular disease detected on preprocedural computed tomography (CT) before aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Among patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing AVR, the authors compared clinical outcomes between patients with and without cerebrovascular disease detected on preprocedural CT, which was defined as chronic brain infarction or hemorrhage. The primary outcome measure in this study was a composite of all-cause death or stroke. Among 567 study patients, 200 patients (35.3%) had cerebrovascular disease on preprocedural CT. Among 200 patients with cerebrovascular disease on preprocedural CT, only 28.5% of patients had a clinical history of symptomatic stroke. The cumulative 3-year incidence of death or stroke was higher in patients with cerebrovascular disease on preprocedural CT than in those without cerebrovascular disease on preprocedural CT (40.7% versus 24.1%, log-rank P<0.001). After adjusting for confounders, the higher risk of patients with cerebrovascular disease on preprocedural CT relative to those without remained significant for death or stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 1.42 [95% CI, 1.02-1.98]; P=0.04). Among 200 patients with cerebrovascular disease on preprocedural CT, patients with prior symptomatic stroke compared with those without were not associated with higher adjusted risk for death or stroke (HR, 1.18 [95% CI, 0.72-1.94]; P=0.52).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing AVR, a substantial proportion had cerebrovascular disease on preprocedural CT, with a clinical history of symptomatic stroke in one-fourth of patients. Regardless of history of symptomatic stroke, patients with cerebrovascular disease on preprocedural CT had worse clinical outcomes compared with those without cerebrovascular disease on preprocedural CT.

Mortality trends of aortic stenosis in high-income countries from 2000 to 2020

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to describe recent mortality trends from aortic stenosis (AS) among eight high-income countries.

METHODS

We analysed the WHO mortality database to determine trends in mortality from AS in the UK, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, Australia, the USA and Canada from 2000 to 2020. Crude and age-standardised mortality rates per 100 000 persons were calculated. We calculated age-specific mortality rates in three groups (<64, 65-79 and ≥80 years). Annual percentage change was analysed using joinpoint regression.

RESULTS

During the observation period, the crude mortality rates per 100 000 persons increased in all the eight countries (from 3.47 to 5.87 in the UK, from 2.98 to 8.93 in Germany, from 3.84 to 5.52 in France, from 1.97 to 4.33 in Italy, from 1.12 to 5.49 in Japan, from 2.14 to 3.38 in Australia, from 3.58 to 4.22 in the USA and from 2.12 to 5.00 in Canada). In joinpoint regression of age-standardised mortality rates, trend changes towards a decrease were observed in Germany after 2012 (-1.2%, p=0.015), Australia after 2011 (-1.9%, p=0.005) and the USA after 2014 (-3.1%, p<0.001). Age-specific mortality rates in age group ≥80 years had shifts towards decreasing trends in all the eight countries in contrast to other younger age groups.

CONCLUSIONS

While crude mortality rates increased in the eight countries, shifts towards decreasing trends were identified in age-standardised mortality rates in three countries and in the elderly aged ≥80 years in the eight countries. Further multidimensional observation is warranted to clarify the mortality trends.

Clinical Frailty Scale as a predictor of adverse outcomes following aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Assessment of frailty prior to aortic valve intervention is recommended in European and North American valvular heart disease guidelines. However, there is a lack of consensus on how it is best measured. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is a well-validated measure of frailty that is relatively quick to calculate. This meta-analysis sought to examine whether the CFS predicts mortality and morbidity following either transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

METHODS

Nine electronic databases were searched systematically for data on clinical outcomes post-TAVI/SAVR, where patients had undergone preoperative frailty assessment using the CFS. The primary endpoint was 12-month mortality. TAVI and SAVR data were assessed and reported separately. For each individual study, the incidence of adverse outcomes was extracted according to a CFS score of 5-9 (ie, frail) versus 1-4 (ie, non-frail), with meta-analysis performed using a random effects model.

RESULTS

Of 2612 records screened, nine were included in the review (five TAVI, three SAVR and one which included both interventions). Among 4923 TAVI patients, meta-analysis showed 12-month mortality rates of 19.1% for the frail cohort versus 9.8% for the non-frail cohort (RR 2.53 (1.63 to 3.95), p<0.001, I2=83%). For the smaller cohort of SAVR patients (n=454), mortality rates were 20.3% versus 3.9% for the frail and non-frail cohorts, respectively (RR 5.08 (2.31 to 11.15), p<0.001, I2=5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Frailty, as determined by the CFS, was associated with an increased mortality risk in the 12 months following either TAVI or SAVR. These data would support its use in the preoperative assessment of elderly patients undergoing aortic valve interventions.

Atrial fibrillation in patients with severe aortic stenosis

BACKGROUND

There has been no previous report evaluating the long impact of atrial fibrillation (AF) on the clinical outcomes stratified by the initial management [conservative or aortic valve replacement (AVR)] strategies of severe aortic stenosis (AS).

METHODS

We analyzed 3815 patients with severe AS enrolled in the CURRENT AS registry. Patients with AF were defined as those having a history of AF when severe AS was found on the index echocardiography. The primary outcome measure was a composite of aortic valve-related death or hospitalization for heart failure.

RESULTS

The cumulative 5-year incidence of the primary outcome measure was significantly higher in patients with AF than in those without AF (44.2 % versus 33.2 %, HR 1.54, 95 % CI 1.35-1.76). After adjusting for confounders, the risk of AF relative to no AF remained significant (HR 1.34, 95 % CI 1.16-1.56). The magnitude of excess adjusted risk of AF for the primary outcome measure was greater in the initial AVR stratum (N = 1197, HR 1.95, 95 % CI 1.36-2.78) than in the conservative stratum (N = 2618, HR 1.26, 95 % CI 1.08-1.47) with a significant interaction (p = 0.04). In patients with AF, there was a significant excess adjusted risk of paroxysmal AF (N = 254) relative to chronic AF (N = 528) for the primary outcome measure (HR 1.34, 95 % CI 1.01-1.78).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with severe AS, concomitant AF was independently associated with worse clinical outcomes regardless of the initial management strategies. In those patients with conservative strategy, paroxysmal AF is stronger risk factor than chronic AF.

Discrepancy of Aortic Valve Area Measurements by Doppler vs. Biplane Stroke Volume Measurements and Utility of Combining the Different Areas in Aortic Valve Stenosis - The Asian Valve Registry

BACKGROUND

The aortic valve area index (AVAI) in aortic stenosis (AS) is measured by echocardiography with a continuity equation using the stroke volume index by Doppler (SVI_Doppler) or biplane Simpson (SVI_Biplane) method. AVAI_Dopplerand AVAI_Biplaneoften show discrepancy due to differences between SVI_Dopplerand SVI_Biplane. The degree of discrepancy and utility of combined AVAIs have not been investigated in a large population of AS patients, and the characteristics of subjects with larger discrepancies are unknown.Methods and Results:We studied 820 patients with significant AS (AVA_Doppler<1.5 cm²) enrolled in the Asian Valve Registry, a prospective multicenter registry at 12 Asian centers. All-cause death and aortic valve replacement were defined as events. SVI_Dopplerwas significantly larger than SVI_Biplane(49±11 vs. 39±11 mL/m², P<0.01) and AVAI_Dopplerwas larger than AVAI_Biplane(0.51±0.15 vs. 0.41±0.14 cm²/m², P<0.01). An increase in (AVAI_Doppler- AVAI_Biplane) correlated with shorter height, lower weight, older age, smaller left ventricular (LV) diameter and increased velocity of ejection flow at the LV outflow tract. Severe AS by AVAI_Doppleror AVAI_Biplaneenabled prediction of events, and combining these AVAIs improved the predictive value of each.

CONCLUSIONS

Discrepancy in AVAI by Doppler vs. biplane method was significantly more pronounced with increased LV outflow tract flow velocity, shorter height, lower weight, older age and smaller LV cavity dimensions. Combining the AVAIs enabled mutual and incremental value in predicting events.

Severe Aortic Stenosis and Chronic Kidney Disease: Outcomes and Impact of Aortic Valve Replacement

Background

The prognostic significance of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in severe aortic stenosis is poorly understood and no studies have yet evaluated the effect of aortic‐valve replacement (AVR) versus conservative management on long‐term mortality by stage of CKD.

Methods and Results

We included 4119 patients with severe aortic stenosis. The population was divided into 4 groups according to the baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate: no CKD, mild CKD, moderate CKD, and severe CKD. The 5‐year survival rate was 71±1% for patients without CKD, 62±2% for those with mild CKD, 54±3% for those with moderate CKD, and 34±4% for those with severe CKD (P<0.001). By multivariable analysis, patients with moderate or severe CKD had a significantly higher risk of all‐cause (hazard ratio [HR] [95% CI]=1.36 [1.08–1.71]; P=0.009 and HR [95% CI]=2.16 [1.67–2.79]; P<0.001, respectively) and cardiovascular mortality (HR [95% CI]=1.39 [1.03–1.88]; P=0.031 and HR [95% CI]=1.69 [1.18–2.41]; P=0.004, respectively) than patients without CKD. Despite more symptoms, AVR was less frequent in moderate (P=0.002) and severe CKD (P<0.001). AVR was associated with a marked reduction in all‐cause and cardiovascular mortality versus conservative management for each CKD group (all P<0.001). The joint‐test showed no interaction between AVR and CKD stages (P=0.676) indicating a nondifferentialeffect of AVR across stages of CKD. After propensity matching, AVR was still associated with substantially better survival for each CKD stage relative to conservative management (all P<0.0017).

Conclusions

In severe aortic stenosis, moderate and severe CKD are associated with increased mortality and decreased referral to AVR. AVR markedly reduces all‐cause and cardiovascular mortality, regardless of the CKD stage. Therefore, CKD should not discourage physicians from considering AVR.

Contemporary issues in severe aortic stenosis: review of current and future strategies from the Contemporary Outcomes after Surgery and Medical Treatment in Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis registry

Contemporary Outcomes after Surgery and Medical Treatment in Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis (CURRENT AS) registry was a large Japanese multicentre retrospective registry of consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) before introduction of transcatheter aortic valve implantation. We sought to overview the data from the CURRENT AS registry to discuss the three major contemporary issues related to clinical practice in patients with severe AS: (1) under-referral/underuse of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in symptomatic patients with severe AS, (2) management of asymptomatic patients with severe AS and (3) management of patients with low-gradient severe aortic stenosis (LG-AS). First, despite the dismal prognosis of symptomatic patients with severe AS, SAVR, including those performed during follow-up, was reported to be underused. In the CURRENT AS registry, overall 53% of symptomatic patients underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) during follow-up. Second, we reported that compared with conservative strategy, initial AVR strategy was associated with lower risk of all-cause death and heart failure hospitalisation in asymptomatic patients with severe AS. Although current recommendations for AVR are mainly dependent on the patient symptoms, some patients may not complain of any symptom because of their sedentary lifestyle. We also reported several important objective factors associated with worse clinical outcomes in asymptomatic patients with severe AS for risk stratification. Finally, initial AVR strategy was associated with better long-term clinical outcomes than conservative strategy in both patients with high-gradient AS and patients with LG-AS. The favourable effect of initial AVR strategy was also seen in patients with LG-AS with left ventricular ejection fraction of ≥50%.