Deferred versus Expedited Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic (AS DEFER): A Research Letter.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Lanz J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8086732 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7527876 | 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: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:Aortic valve calcium scoring by cardiac computed tomographic (CT) has been recommended as an alternative to classify the AS (aortic stenosis) severity, but it is unclear that whether CT findings would have additional value to discriminate significant AS subtypes including high gradient severe AS, classic low-flow, low gradient (LF-LG) AS, paradoxical LF-LG AS, and moderate AS. In this study, we examined the preoperative clinical and cardiac CT findings of different subtypes of AS in patients with surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) and evaluated the subtype classification as a factor affecting post-surgical outcomes. This study included 511 (66.9 ± 8.8 years, 55% men) consecutive patients with severe AS who underwent surgical AVR. Aortic valve area (AVA) was obtained by echocardiography (AVAecho) and by CT (AVACT) using each modalities measurement of the left ventricular outflow tract. Patients with AS were classified as (1) high-gradient severe (n = 438), (2) classic LF-LG (n = 18), and (3) paradoxical LF-LG (n = 55) based on echocardiography. In all patients, 455 (89.0%) patients were categorized as severe AS according to the AVACT. However, 56 patients were re-classified as moderate AS (43 [9.8%] high-gradient severe AS, 5 [27.8%] classic LF-LG AS, and 8 [14.5%] paradoxical LF-LG AS) by AVACT. The classic LF-LG AS group presented larger AVACT and aortic annulus than those in high-gradient severe AS group and one third of them had AVACT ≥ 1.2 cm2. After multivariable adjustment, old age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04, P = 0.049), high B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) (HR, 1.005; P < 0.001), preoperative atrial fibrillation (HR, 2.75; P = 0.003), classic LF-LG AS (HR, 5.53, P = 0.004), and small aortic annulus on CT (HR, 0.57; P = 0.002) were independently associated with major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) after surgical AVR.
| S-EPMC9079063 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6015421 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) has been developed as an alternative surgical treatment for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS). The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of SU-AVR through an assessment of hemodynamic performance and safety.From December 2014 to June 2016, a total of 12 consecutive patients with severe AS underwent SU-AVR. The endpoints were overall survival and valve-related complications (paravalvular leakage, valve thrombosis, migration, endocarditis, and permanent pacemaker implantation). The mean follow-up duration was 18.1±8.6 months.The mean age of the patients was 77.1±5.8 years and their mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 9.2±17.7. The mean cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times were 94.5±37.3 minutes and 54.9±12.5 minutes, respectively. Follow-up echocardiography showed good prosthesis function with low transvalvular pressure gradients (mean, 13.9±8.6 mm Hg and peak, 27.2±15.0 mm Hg) at a mean of 9.9±4.2 months. No cases of primary paravalvular leakage, valve thrombosis, migration, or endocarditis were reported. A new permanent pacemaker was implanted in 1 patient (8.3%). The 1-year overall survival rate was 83.3%±10.8%.Our initial experience with SU-AVR demonstrated excellent early clinical outcomes with good hemodynamic results. However, there was a high incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation compared to the rate for conventional AVR, which is a problem that should be solved.
| S-EPMC5796611 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7919094 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective To determine the frequency of survival, stroke, atrial fibrillation, structural valve deterioration, and length of hospital stay after surgical replacement of an aortic valve (SAVR) with a bioprosthetic valve in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.Data sources Medline, Embase, PubMed (non-Medline records only), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane CENTRAL from 2002 to June 2016.Study selection Eligible observational studies followed patients after SAVR with a bioprosthetic valve for at least two years.Methods Reviewers, independently and in duplicate, evaluated study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias for patient important outcomes. We used the GRADE system to quantify absolute effects and quality of evidence. Published survival curves provided data for survival and freedom from structural valve deterioration, and random effect models provided the framework for estimates of pooled incidence rates of stroke, atrial fibrillation, and length of hospital stay.Results In patients undergoing SAVR with a bioprosthetic valve, median survival was 16 years in those aged 65 or less, 12 years in those aged 65 to 75, seven years in those aged 75 to 85, and six years in those aged more than 85. The incidence rate of stroke was 0.25 per 100 patient years (95% confidence interval 0.06 to 0.54) and atrial fibrillation 2.90 per 100 patient years (1.78 to 4.79). Post-SAVR, freedom from structural valve deterioration was 94.0% at 10 years, 81.7% at 15 years, and 52% at 20 years, and mean length of hospital stay was 12 days (95% confidence interval 9 to 15).Conclusion Patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis undergoing SAVR with a bioprosthetic valve can expect only slightly lower survival than those without aortic stenosis, and a low incidence of stroke and, up to 10 years, of structural valve deterioration. The rate of deterioration increases rapidly after 10 years, and particularly after 15 years.
| S-EPMC5040922 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The study sought to contrast risk profiles and compare outcomes of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and coronary artery disease (CAD) who underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) and coronary artery bypass grafting (AS+CABG) with those of patients with isolated AS who underwent AVR alone.In patients with severe AS, CAD is often an incidental finding with underappreciated survival implications.From October 1991 to July 2010, 2,286 patients underwent AVR+CABG and 1,637 AVR alone. A propensity score was developed and used for matched comparisons of outcomes (1,082 patient pairs). Analyses of long-term mortality were performed for each group, then combined to identify common and unique risk factors.Patients with AS+CAD versus isolated AS were older, more symptomatic, and more likely to be hypertensive, and had lower ejection fraction and greater arteriosclerotic burden but less severe AS. Hospital morbidity and long-term survival were poorer (43% vs. 59% at 10 years). Both groups shared many mortality risk factors; however, early risk among AS+CAD patients reflected effects of CAD; late risk reflected diastolic left ventricular dysfunction expressed as ventricular hypertrophy and left atrial enlargement. Patients with isolated AS and few comorbidities had the best outcome, those with CAD without myocardial damage had intermediate outcome equivalent to propensity-matched isolated AS patients, and those with CAD, myocardial damage, and advanced comorbidities had the worst outcome.Cardiovascular risk factors and comorbidities must be considered in managing patients with severe AS. Patients with severe AS and CAD risk factors should undergo early diagnostics and AVR+CABG before ischemic myocardial damage occurs.
| S-EPMC4262244 | biostudies-literature