Mortality, Stroke, and Hospitalization Associated With Deferred vs Expedited Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients Referred for Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ryffel C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7527876 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8086732 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is a life-saving treatment for patients with symptomatic severe aortic valve stenosis. We sought to determine whether transcatheter AVR has resulted in a more equitable treatment rate by race in the United States. Methods and Results A total of 32 853 patients with symptomatic severe aortic valve stenosis were retrospectively identified via Optum's deidentified electronic health records database (2007-2017). AVR rates in non-Hispanic Black and White patients were assessed in the year after diagnosis. Multivariate Fine-Gray hazards models were used to evaluate the likelihood of AVR by race, with adjustment for patient factors and the managing cardiologist. Time-trend and 1-year symptomatic severe aortic valve stenosis survival analyses were also performed. From 2011 to 2016, the rate of AVR increased from 20.1% to 37.1%. Overall, Black individuals were less likely than Whites to receive AVR (22.9% versus 31.0%; unadjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.62-0.79; fully adjusted HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.67-0.85). Yet, during 2015 to 2016, AVR racial differences were attenuated (29.5% versus 35.2%; adjusted HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.74-1.02) because of greater uptake of transcatheter AVR in Blacks than Whites (53.4% of AVRs versus 47.3%; P=0.128). Untreated patients had significantly higher 1-year mortality than those treated (adjusted HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.53-0.61), which was consistent by race (interaction P value=0.52). Conclusions Although transcatheter AVR has increased the use of AVR in the United States, treatment rates remain low. Black patients with symptomatic severe aortic valve stenosis were less likely than White patients to receive AVR, yet these differences have recently narrowed.
| S-EPMC7660794 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis and a history of chest radiation therapy represent a complex and challenging cohort. It is unknown how transcatheter aortic valve replacement ( TAVR ) compares with surgical aortic valve replacement in this group of patients, which was the objective of this study. Methods and Results We retrospectively reviewed all patients with severe aortic stenosis who underwent either TAVR or surgical aortic valve replacement at our institution with a history of mediastinal radiation (n=55 per group). End points were echocardiographic and clinical outcomes in-hospital, at 30 days, and at 1 year. Inverse propensity weighting analysis was used to account for intergroup baseline differences. TAVR patients had a higher STS score than surgical aortic valve replacement patients (5.1% [3.2, 7.7] versus 1.6% [0.8, 2.6], P<0.001) and more often ( P<0.01 for all) a history of atrial fibrillation (45.5% versus 12.7%), chronic lung disease (47.3% versus 7.3%), peripheral arterial disease (38.2% versus 7.3%), heart failure (58.2% versus 18.2%), and pacemaker therapy (23.6% versus 1.8%). Postoperative atrial fibrillation was less frequent (1.8% versus 27.3%; P<0.001) and hospital stay was shorter in TAVR patients (4.0 [2.0, 5.0] versus 6.0 [5.0, 8.0] days; P<0.001). The ratio of observed-to-expected 30-day mortality was lower after TAVR as was 30-day mortality in inverse propensity weighting-adjusted Kaplan-Meier analyses. Conclusions In patients with severe aortic stenosis and a history of chest radiation therapy, TAVR performs better than predicted along with less adjusted 30-day all-cause mortality, postoperative atrial fibrillation, and shorter hospitalization compared with surgical aortic valve replacement. These data support further studies on the preferred role of TAVR in this unique patient population.
| S-EPMC6585322 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been shown to be a valid alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients at high operative risk with severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, the evidence of the benefits and harms of TAVR in patients at low operative risk is still scarce.ObjectiveTo compare the short-term and midterm outcomes after TAVR and SAVR in low-risk patients with AS.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective comparative effectiveness cohort study used data from the Nationwide Finnish Registry of Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Valve Stenosis of patients at low operative risk who underwent TAVR or SAVR with a bioprosthesis for severe AS from January 1, 2008, to November 30, 2017. Low operative risk was defined as a Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score less than 3% without other comorbidities of clinical relevance. One-to-one propensity score matching was performed to adjust for baseline covariates between the TAVR and SAVR cohorts.ExposuresPrimary TAVR or SAVR with a bioprosthesis for AS with or without associated coronary revascularization.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were 30-day and 3-year survival.ResultsOverall, 2841 patients (mean [SD] age, 74.0 [6.2] years; 1560 [54.9%] men) fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis; TAVR was performed in 325 patients and SAVR in 2516 patients. Propensity score matching produced 304 pairs with similar baseline characteristics. Third-generation devices were used in 263 patients (86.5%) who underwent TAVR. Among these matched pairs, 30-day mortality was 1.3% after TAVR and 3.6% after SAVR (P = .12). Three-year survival was similar in the study cohorts (TAVR, 85.7%; SAVR, 87.7%; P = .45). Interaction tests found no differences in terms of 3-year survival between the study cohorts in patients younger than vs older than 80 years or in patients who received recent aortic valve prostheses vs those who did not.Conclusions and relevanceTranscatheter aortic valve replacement using mostly third-generation devices achieved similar short- and mid-term survival compared with SAVR in low-risk patients. Further studies are needed to assess the long-term durability of TAVR prostheses before extending their use to low-risk patients.
| S-EPMC6575142 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We are looking at differential gene/protein expression in tissue from stenotic vs sclerotic human aortic valves in order to identify genetic predispositions for aortic valve disease, as well as novel targets for diagnostic and therapeutic strategies.
2019-10-08 | GSE138531 | GEO
Project description:ObjectiveTo 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).MethodsEchocardiographic 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<aortic valve area (AVA)<1.5 cm2, 3.0<peak velocity<4.0 m/s and 20≤mean gradient (MG) <40 mm Hg). Clinical outcomes were reported through 2 years.ResultsModerately-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).ConclusionsIn 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.
| S-EPMC10186477 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7649487 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Aortic valve replacement is no longer an operation that is approached solely through a median sternotomy. Recent advances in the fields of transcatheter valves have expanded the proportion of patients eligible for intervention. Comparisons between transcatheter valves and conventional surgery have shown non-inferiority of transcatheter valve implants in patients with a high or intermediate pre-operative predictive risk. With advances in our understanding of sutureless valves and their applicability to minimally invasive surgery, the invasiveness and trauma of surgery can be reduced with potential improvements in outcome. The strategy of care has radically changed over the last decade.
| S-EPMC5074353 | biostudies-other
Project description:ImportanceTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) indications are expanding, leading to an increasing number of patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR. Pivotal randomized trials conducted to obtain US Food and Drug Administration approval excluded bicuspid anatomy.ObjectiveTo compare the outcomes of TAVR with a balloon-expandable valve for bicuspid vs tricuspid aortic stenosis.Design, setting, and participantsRegistry-based prospective cohort study of patients undergoing TAVR at 552 US centers. Participants were enrolled in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)/American College of Cardiology (ACC) Transcatheter Valve Therapies Registry from June 2015 to November 2018.ExposuresTAVR for bicuspid vs tricuspid aortic stenosis.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes were 30-day and 1-year mortality and stroke. Secondary outcomes included procedural complications, valve hemodynamics, and quality of life assessment.ResultsOf 81 822 consecutive patients with aortic stenosis (2726 bicuspid; 79 096 tricuspid), 2691 propensity-score matched pairs of bicuspid and tricuspid aortic stenosis were analyzed (median age, 74 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 66-81 years]; 39.1%, women; mean [SD] STS-predicted risk of mortality, 4.9% [4.0%] and 5.1% [4.2%], respectively). All-cause mortality was not significantly different between patients with bicuspid and tricuspid aortic stenosis at 30 days (2.6% vs 2.5%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.04, [95% CI, 0.74-1.47]) and 1 year (10.5% vs 12.0%; HR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.73-1.10]). The 30-day stroke rate was significantly higher for bicuspid vs tricuspid aortic stenosis (2.5% vs 1.6%; HR, 1.57 [95% CI, 1.06-2.33]). The risk of procedural complications requiring open heart surgery was significantly higher in the bicuspid vs tricuspid cohort (0.9% vs 0.4%, respectively; absolute risk difference [RD], 0.5% [95% CI, 0%-0.9%]). There were no significant differences in valve hemodynamics. There were no significant differences in moderate or severe paravalvular leak at 30 days (2.0% vs 2.4%; absolute RD, 0.3% [95% CI, -1.3% to 0.7%]) and 1 year (3.2% vs 2.5%; absolute RD, 0.7% [95% CI, -1.3% to 2.7%]). At 1 year there was no significant difference in improvement in quality of life between the groups (difference in improvement in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score, -2.4 [95% CI, -5.1 to 0.3]; P = .08).Conclusions and relevanceIn this preliminary, registry-based study of propensity-matched patients who had undergone transcatheter aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis, patients with bicuspid vs tricuspid aortic stenosis had no significant difference in 30-day or 1-year mortality but had increased 30-day risk for stroke. Because of the potential for selection bias and the absence of a control group treated surgically for bicuspid stenosis, randomized trials are needed to adequately assess the efficacy and safety of transcatheter aortic valve replacement for bicuspid aortic stenosis.
| S-EPMC6563564 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy is a common finding in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is the gold-standard technique to evaluate LV remodeling. Our aim was to assess the prevalence and describe the patterns of LV adaptation in AS patients before and after surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). Prospective study of 130 consecutive patients (71y [IQR 68-77y], 48% men) with severe AS, referred for surgical AVR. Patterns of LV remodeling were assessed by CMR. Besides normal LV ventricular structure, four other patterns were considered: concentric remodeling, concentric hypertrophy, eccentric hypertrophy, and adverse remodeling. At baseline CMR study: mean LV indexed mass: 81.8 ± 26.7 g/m2; mean end-diastolic LV indexed volume: 85.7 ± 23.1 mL/m2 and median geometric remodeling ratio: 0.96 g/mL [IQR 0.82-1.08 g/mL]. LV hypertrophy occurred in 49% of subjects (concentric 44%; eccentric 5%). Both normal LV structure and concentric remodeling had a prevalence of 25% among the cohort; one patient had an adverse remodeling pattern. Asymmetric LV wall thickening was present in 55% of the patients, with predominant septal involvement. AVR was performed in 119 patients. At 3-6 months after AVR, LV remodeling changed to: normal ventricular geometry in 60%, concentric remodeling in 27%, concentric hypertrophy in 10%, eccentric hypertrophy in 3% and adverse remodeling (one patient). Indexes of AS severity, LV systolic and diastolic function and NT-proBNP were significantly different among the distinct patterns of remodeling. Several distinct patterns of LV remodelling beyond concentric hypertrophy occur in patients with classical severe AS. Asymmetric hypertrophy is a common finding and LV response after AVR is diverse.
| S-EPMC10963734 | biostudies-literature