Early Aortic Valve Replacement vs. Conservative Management in Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Meta-Analysis

Pulmonary congestion assessed by lung ultrasound in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Prevalence and prognostic implications

AIMS

Lung ultrasound (LUS) is a sensitive tool to assess pulmonary congestion (PC). Few data are available on LUS-PC evaluation in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence and prognostic impact of LUS-PC in patients with severe AS before and after TAVI.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We designed a single-centre prospective study in patients referred for TAVI for severe AS (ClinicalTrials.gov identification number: NCT05024942). All patients underwent echocardiography and LUS (according to a simplified 8-zone scanning protocol) the day before and within 72 h after the procedure. The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality, hospitalization for heart failure and urgent medical visits for worsening dyspnoea at 12-month follow-up. A total of 127 patients were enrolled (mean age 81.1 ± 5.8 years; 54.3% female). Pre-TAVI LUS-PC was documented in 65 patients (51%). After TAVI, the prevalence of LUS-PC significantly decreased as compared to pre-TAVI evaluation, being documented in only 28 patients (22% vs. 51%, p < 0.001) with a median B-lines score of 4 (interquartile range [IQR] 0-11) versus 11 (IQR 6-19) pre-TAVI (p < 0.001). During a median follow-up of 12 (12-17) months, 25 patients (19.6%) met the composite endpoint. On multivariable Cox regression analysis, pre-TAVI LUS-PC was independently associated with cardiovascular events (hazard ratio 2.764, 95% confidence interval 1.114-6.857; p = 0.028).

CONCLUSIONS

Lung ultrasonography reveals a high prevalence of PC in patients with severe AS undergoing TAVI, which is significantly reduced by the procedure. Pre-TAVI PC, measured by LUS, is an independent predictor of 1-year clinical outcome.

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.

Heart Failure after Aortic Valve Replacement: Incidence, Risk Factors, and Implications

Severe aortic stenosis (AS) carries a poor prognosis with the onset of heart failure (HF) symptoms, and surgical or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (AVR) is its only definitive treatment. The management of AS has seen a paradigm shift with the adoption of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), allowing for the treatment of AS in patients who would not otherwise be candidates for surgical AVR. Despite improving long-term survival after TAVR in recent years, residual HF symptoms and HF hospitalization are common and are associated with an increased mortality and a poor health status. This review article summarizes the incidence and risk factors for HF after AVR. Strategies for preventing and better managing HF after AVR are necessary to improve outcomes in this patient population. Extensive research is underway to assess whether earlier timing for AVR, prior to the development of severe symptomatic AS and associated extra-valvular cardiac damage, can improve post-AVR patient outcomes.

Prevalence and clinical associations of mitral and aortic regurgitation in patients with aortic stenosis

BACKGROUND

Most guidelines directing clinicians to manage valve disease are directed at single valve lesions. Limited data exists to direct our understanding of how concomitant valve disease impacts the left ventricle (LV).

METHODS

We identified 2817 patients with aortic stenosis (AS) from the echocardiography laboratory database between September 2012 and June 2018 who had a LV ejection fraction (EF) ≥50%. LV mass, LV mass index, LV systolic pressure (systolic blood pressure + peak aortic gradient). Covariates were collected from the electronic medical record. Multi-variate analysis of covariance was used to generate adjusted comparisons.

RESULTS

Our population was 66% female, 17% African-American with a mean age of 65 years. Of note, 7.3% were noted to have significant (moderate/severe) aortic regurgitation (AR), and 11% had significant (moderate/severe) mitral regurgitation (MR). Adjusting for covariates at different levels, significant MR had a much stronger association with heart failure compared to those with significant AR (p < .001 vs. p = .313, respectively) at all levels of adjustment. Both significant mitral and AR exhibited an association with increasing left ventricular mass, even with adjustment for baseline demographics and clinical features (p < .001 vs. p = .007, respectively).

CONCLUSION

In patients with AS, 16% also experience at least moderate MR or AR. Further, significant MR has a stronger association with heart failure than significant AR, even though both increase left ventricular mass. Those with moderate AS and significant MR or AR experience similar or higher levels of heart failure compared to severe AS without regurgitation. Mixed valve disease merits further studies to direct longitudinal management.

Treatment in patients with severe asymptomatic aortic stenosis: is it best not to wait?

New insights into the natural history and pathophysiology of patients with aortic stenosis (AS), coupled with the dramatic evolution of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), are fuelling intense interest in the management of asymptomatic patients with severe AS. This patient presenting for elective intervention poses a unique challenge. These patients are not traditionally offered surgical aortic valve replacement or TAVI given their lack of symptoms; however, they are at increased risk given the severity of their AS. Furthermore, clinical experience has shown that symptoms can be challenging to ascertain in many sedentary, deconditioned, and/or elderly patients. In addition, evolving data based on imaging and biomarker evidence of adverse ventricular remodelling, hypertrophy, inflammation, or fibrosis may radically transform existing clinical decision paradigms. However, management of asymptomatic severe AS is otherwise controversial and the decision to intervene requires careful assessment of the benefits and risks in an individual patient. Further randomized trials [EARLY TAVI (NCT03042104), AVATAR (NCT02436655), EVOLVED (NCT03094143)] will help determine future recommendations.

Calculation of Aortic VAlve and LVOT Areas by a Modified Continuity Equation Using Different Echocardiography Methods: The CAVALIER Study

Background: The area of the left ventricular outflow tract (A_LVOT) represents a major component of the continuity equation (CE), which is, i.a., crucial to calculate the aortic valve (AV) area (A_AV). The A_LVOT is typically calculated using 2D echo assessments as the measured anterior–posterior (a/p) extension, assuming a round LVOT base. Anatomically, however, usually an elliptical shape of the LVOT base is present, with the long diameter extending from the medial–lateral axis (m/l), which is not recognized by two-dimensional (2D) echocardiography. Objective: We aimed to compare standard and three-dimensional (3D)-echocardiography-derived A_LVOT calculation and its use in a standard CE (CE_std) and a modified CE (CE_mod) to calculate the A_AV vs. computed tomography (CT) multi-planar reconstruction (MPR) measurements of the anatomical A_LVOT, and A_AV, respectively. Methods: Patients were selected if 3D transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), 3D transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), and cardiac CT were all performed, and imaging quality was adequate. The A_LVOT was assessed using 2D calculation, (a/p only), 3D-volume MPR, and 3D-biplane calculation (a/p and m/l). A_AV was measured using both CE_std and CE_mod, and 3D-volume MPR. Data were compared to corresponding CT analyses. Results: From 2017 to 2018, 107 consecutive patients with complete and adequate imaging data were included. The calculated A_LVOT was smaller when assessed by 2D- compared to both 3D-volume MPR and 3D-biplane calculation. Calculated A_AV was correspondingly smaller in CE_std compared to CE_mod or 3D-volume MPR. The A_LVOT and A_AV, using data from 3D echocardiography, highly correlated and were congruent with corresponding measurements in CT. Conclusion: Due to the elliptic shape of the LVOT, use of measurements and calculations based on 2D echocardiography systematically underestimates the A_LVOT and dependent areas, such as the A_AV. Anatomically correct assessment can be achieved using 3D echocardiography and adapted calculations, such as CE_mod.