Dataset Information

Early Valve Replacement for Severe Aortic Valve Disease: Effect on Mortality and Clinical Ramifications.

ABSTRACT: Timing of aortic valve intervention for chronic aortic regurgitation (AR) and/or aortic stenosis (AS) potentially affects long-term survival. The 2014 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC) guidelines provide recommendations for the timing of intervention. Subsequent to the guidelines' release, several studies have been published that suggest a survival benefit from earlier timing of surgery for severe AR and/or AS. The aim of this review was to determine whether patients who have chronic aortic regurgitation (AR) and/or aortic stenosis (AS) have a survival benefit from earlier timing of aortic valve surgery. Medical databases were systematically searched from January 2015 to April 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that examined the timing of aortic valve replacement surgery for chronic AR and/or AS. For chronic AR, four observational studies and no RCTs were identified. For chronic AS, five observational studies, one RCT and one meta-analysis were identified. One observational study examining mixed aortic valve disease (MAVD) was identified. All of these studies, for AR, AS, and MAVD, found long-term survival benefit from timing of aortic valve surgery earlier than the current guidelines. Larger prospective RCTs are required to evaluate the benefit of earlier surgical intervention.

SUBMITTER: Koerber JP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7563468 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Early Valve Replacement for Severe Aortic Valve Disease: Effect on Mortality and Clinical Ramifications.

Koerber Jason P JP Bennetts Jayme S JS Psaltis Peter J PJ

Journal of clinical medicine 20200820 9

Timing of aortic valve intervention for chronic aortic regurgitation (AR) and/or aortic stenosis (AS) potentially affects long-term survival. The 2014 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC) guidelines provide recommendations for the timing of intervention. Subsequent to the guidelines' release, several studies have been published that suggest a survival benefit from earlier timing of surgery for severe AR and/or AS. The aim of this review was to determine whether pat ...[more]

PMID: 32825345

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCirculatory efficiency reflects the ratio between total left ventricular work and the work required for maintaining cardiovascular circulation. The effect of severe aortic valve stenosis (AS) and aortic valve replacement (AVR) on left ventricular/circulatory mechanical power and efficiency is not yet fully understood. We aimed to quantify left ventricular (LV) efficiency in patients with severe AS before and after surgical AVR.MethodsCirculatory efficiency was computed from cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging derived volumetric data, echocardiographic and clinical data in patients with severe AS (n?=?41) before and 4 months after AVR and in age and sex-matched healthy subjects (n?=?10).ResultsIn patients with AS circulatory efficiency was significantly decreased compared to healthy subjects (9?±?3% vs 12?±?2%; p?=?0.004). There were significant negative correlations between circulatory efficiency and LV myocardial mass (r?=?-?0.591, p?<?0.001), myocardial fibrosis volume (r?=?-?0.427, p?=?0.015), end systolic volume (r?=?-?0.609, p?<?0.001) and NT-proBNP (r?=?-?0.444, p?=?0.009) and significant positive correlation between circulatory efficiency and LV ejection fraction (r?=?0.704, p?<?0.001). After AVR, circulatory efficiency increased significantly in the total cohort (9?±?3 vs 13?±?5%; p?<?0.001). However, in 10/41 (24%) patients, circulatory efficiency remained below 10% after AVR and, thus, did not restore to normal values. These patients also showed less reduction in myocardial fibrosis volume compared to patients with restored circulatory efficiency after AVR.ConclusionIn our cohort, circulatory efficiency is reduced in patients with severe AS. In 76% of cases, AVR leads to normalization of circulatory efficiency. However, in 24% of patients, circulatory efficiency remained below normal values even after successful AVR. In these patients also less regression of myocardial fibrosis volume was seen. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov NCT03172338, June 1, 2017, retrospectively registered.

Project description:BackgroundImpaired left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction is a common finding in patients with aortic stenosis and serves as a predictor of morbidity and mortality after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. However, conflicting data on the most accurate measure for LV function exist. We wanted to examine the impact of LV ejection fraction, mean pressure gradient, and stroke volume index on the outcome of patients treated by transcatheter aortic valve replacement.Methods and resultsPatients treated by transcatheter aortic valve replacement were primarily separated into normal flow (NF; stroke volume index >35 mL/m2) and low flow (LF; stroke volume index ?35 mL/m2). Afterwards, patients were divided into 5 groups: "NF-high gradient," "NF-low gradient" (NF-LG), "LF-high gradient," "paradoxical LF-LG," and "classic LF-LG." The 3-year mortality was the primary end point. Of 1600 patients, 789 (49.3%) were diagnosed as having LF, which was characterized by a higher 30-day (P=0.041) and 3-year (P<0.001) mortality. LF was an independent predictor of all-cause (hazard ratio, 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.62; P=0.03) and cardiovascular (hazard ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.77; P=0.016) mortality. Neither mean pressure gradient nor LV ejection fraction was an independent predictor of mortality. Patients with paradoxical LF-LG (35.0%), classic LF-LG (35.1%) and LF-high gradient (38.1%) had higher all-cause mortality at 3 years compared with NF-high gradient (24.8%) and NF-LG (27.9%) (P=0.001). However, surviving patients showed a similar improvement in symptoms regardless of aortic stenosis entity.ConclusionsLF is a common finding within the aortic stenosis population and, in contrast to LV ejection fraction or mean pressure gradient, an independent predictor of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Despite increased long-term mortality, high procedural success and excellent functional improvement support transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with LF severe aortic stenosis.

Project description:BackgroundStudies assessing outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis (AS) with hemodynamic subtypes have demonstrated mixed results with respect to outcomes and periprocedural complications. This study aimed to assess the outcomes of TAVR in patients across various hemodynamic subtypes of severe AS.MethodsPubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched through September 2023 to identify all observational studies comparing outcomes of TAVR in patients with paradoxical low flow low gradient (pLFLG), classic LFLG, and high gradient AS (HGAS). The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). The secondary outcomes were components of MACE (mortality, myocardial infarction [MI], stroke). A bivariate, influential, and frequentist network meta-analysis model was used to obtain the net odds ratio (OR) with a 95% CI.ResultsA total of 21 studies comprising 17,298 (8742 experimental and 8556 HGAS) patients were included in the quantitative analysis. TAVR was associated with a significant reduction in the mean aortic gradient, and an increase in the mean aortic valve area irrespective of the AS type. Compared with HGAS, TAVR in classic LFLG had a significantly higher (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.04-2.72), while pLFLG (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.72-1.35) had a statistically similar incidence of MACE at a median follow-up of 1-year. TAVR in LFLG also had a significantly higher need for surgery (OR, 3.57; 95% CI, 1.24-10.32), and a greater risk of periprocedural (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.17-3.41), 1-month (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.08-2.64), and 12-month (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.05-1.88) mortality compared with HGAS. The incidence of MI, major bleeding, vascular complications, paravalvular leak, pacemaker implantation, and rehospitalizations was not significantly different between all other types of AS (HGAS vs LFLG, pLFLG).ConclusionsTAVR is an effective strategy in severe AS irrespective of the hemodynamic subtypes. Relatively, pLFLG did not have significantly different risk of periprocedural complications compared with HGAS, while classical LFLG AS had higher risk of MACE, primarily driven by the greater mortality risk.

Project description:ImportanceHospital outcomes for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may be dependent on the quality of evaluation, personnel, and procedural and postprocedural care common to patients undergoing cardiac surgery.ObjectivesWe sought to assess whether those hospitals with better patient outcomes for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) subsequently achieved better TAVR outcomes after launching TAVR programs.Design, setting, and participantsThis national cohort included US patients 65 years and older. The analysis used the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Medicare Provider and Review data collected between January 1, 2010, and September 29, 2015. Only hospitals performing at least 1 SAVR prior to September 1, 2011, and performing at least 1 TAVR after this date were included in the analysis. Data analysis was completed from June 2018 to August 2018.InterventionsIsolated aortic valve replacements.Main outcomes and measuresHospital risk-adjusted 30-day mortality for SAVR in the pre-TAVR period was used as a surrogate for SAVR quality. Thirty-day and 1-year TAVR mortality rates were examined after stratification by quartile of baseline hospital risk-adjusted SAVR mortality.ResultsA total of 51 924 TAVR procedures were performed in 519 hospitals, of which 19 798 were performed at hospitals in quartile 1 (the lowest risk-adjusted SAVR mortality rate), 7663 were performed in quartile 2, 10 180 were performed in quartile 3, and 14 283 were performed in quartile 4 (the highest risk-adjusted SAVR mortality rate). Observed mortality rates at 30 days consistently increased with increasing baseline hospital SAVR risk-adjusted mortality (quartile 1, 917 patients [4.6%]; quartile 2, 381 [5.0%]; quartile 3, 521 [5.1%]; quartile 4, 800 [5.6%]; P < .001). The same pattern was observed in 1-year mortality (quartile 1, 3359 [17.0%]; quartile 2, 1337 [17.5%]; quartile 3, 1852 [18.2%]; quartile 4, 2652 [18.6%]; P < .001). After multivariable analysis, compared with the lowest quartile of SAVR mortality, undergoing TAVR at a hospital with higher baseline SAVR mortality continued to be associated with higher 30-day mortality (odds ratios: quartile 2, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.87-1.21]; quartile 3, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.02-1.26]; quartile 4, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.07-1.40]; P = .02) and 1-year mortality (hazard ratios: quartile 2, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.92-1.17]; quartile 3, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.02-1.28]; quartile 4, 1.16 [95% CI, 1.05-1.28]; P = .02).Conclusions and relevanceHospitals with higher SAVR mortality rates also had higher short-term and long-term TAVR mortality after initiating TAVR programs. Quality of cardiac surgical care may be associated with a hospital's performance with new structural heart disease programs.

Dataset Information

Early Valve Replacement for Severe Aortic Valve Disease: Effect on Mortality and Clinical Ramifications.

Publications

Early Valve Replacement for Severe Aortic Valve Disease: Effect on Mortality and Clinical Ramifications.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets