Timing of Intervention in Asymptomatic Patients with Aortic Stenosis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Sevilla T
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8477179 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Objectives the exact timing of aortic valve replacement (AVR) in asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) remains a matter of debate. Therefore, we described the natural history of asymptomatic patients with severe AS, and the effect of AVR on long-term survival. Methods: Asymptomatic patients who were found to have severe AS between June 2006 and May 2009 were included. Severe aortic stenosis was defined as peak aortic jet velocity Vmax ≥ 4.0 m/s or aortic valve area (AVA) ≤ 1 cm2. Development of symptoms, the incidence of AVR, and all-cause mortality were assessed. Results: A total of 59 asymptomatic patients with severe AS were followed, with a mean follow-up of 8.9 ± 0.4 years. A total of 51 (86.4%) patients developed AS related symptoms, and subsequently 46 patients underwent AVR. The mean 1-year, 2-year, 5-year, and 10-year overall survival rates were higher in patients receiving AVR compared to those who did not undergo AVR during follow-up (100%, 93.5%, 89.1%, and 69.4%, versus 92.3%, 84.6%, 65.8%, and 28.2%, respectively; p < 0.001). Asymptomatic patients with severe AS receiving AVR during follow-up showed an incremental benefit in survival of up to 31.9 months compared to conservatively managed patients (p = 0.002). Conclusions: The majority of asymptomatic patients turn symptomatic during follow-up. AVR during follow-up is associated with better survival in asymptomatic severe AS patients.
| S-EPMC8066001 | biostudies-literature
Project description:It is unknown how much different are the clinical outcomes between asymptomatic and symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). In the CURRENT AS registry enrolling 3,815 consecutive patients with severe AS, we compared the long-term outcomes between 1808 asymptomatic and 1215 symptomatic patients (exertional dyspnea: N = 813, syncope: N = 136, and angina: N = 266) without heart failure (HF) hospitalization. Symptomatic patients had greater AS severity, and more depressed left ventricular function than asymptomatic patients without much difference in other baseline characteristics. During a median follow-up of 3.2 years, aortic valve replacement (AVR) was performed in 62% of symptomatic patients, and 38% of asymptomatic patients. The cumulative 5-year incidences for the primary outcome measure (a composite of aortic valve-related death or HF hospitalization) was higher in symptomatic patients than in asymptomatic patients (32.3% versus 27.6%, P < 0.001). After adjusting for AVR and other variables, the greater risk of symptomatic relative to asymptomatic patients for the primary outcome measure was significant (hazard ratio 1.64, 95% confidence interval 1.41-1.96, P < 0.001). In conclusions, the excess risk of symptomatic relative to asymptomatic patients with severe AS for the aortic valve-related event was significant. However, the prevalence of AVR in symptomatic patients was not optimal.
| S-EPMC6031663 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aim of the studyPatients with asymptomatic, severe aortic stenosis are presumed to have a benign prognosis. In this retrospective cohort study, we examined the natural history of contemporary patients advised against aortic valve replacement due to a perceived lack of symptoms.Materials and methodsWe reviewed the medical records of every patient given the ICD-10-code for aortic stenosis (I35.0) at Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, between Dec 1st, 2002 and Dec 31st, 2016. Patients who were evaluated by the heart team due to severe aortic stenosis were categorized by treatment strategy. We recorded baseline data, adverse events and survival for the patients characterized as asymptomatic and for 100 age and gender matched patients scheduled for aortic valve replacement.ResultsOf 2341 patients who were evaluated for aortic valve replacement due to severe aortic stenosis, 114 patients received conservative treatment due to a lack of symptoms. Asymptomatic patients had higher mortality than patients who had aortic valve replacement, log-rank p<0.001 (mean follow-up time: 4.0 (SD: 2.5) years). Survival at 1, 2 and 3 years for the asymptomatic patients was 88%, 75% and 63%, compared with 92%, 83% and 78% in the matched patients scheduled for aortic valve replacement. 28 (25%) of the asymptomatic patients had aortic valve replacement during follow-up. Age, previous history of coronary artery disease and N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) were predictors of mortality and coronary artery disease and NT-proBNP were predictors of 3-year morbidity in asymptomatic patients.ConclusionsIn this retrospective study, asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis who were advised against surgery had significantly higher mortality than patients who had aortic valve replacement.
| S-EPMC8026050 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6287563 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:We evaluated whether early measurement of soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) could predict future risk of postoperative complications in initially asymptomatic patients with mild-moderate aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) surgery. Methods:Baseline plasma suPAR levels were available in 411 patients who underwent AVR surgery during follow-up in the Simvastatin and Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis (SEAS) study. Cox analyses were used to evaluate suPAR in relation to all-cause mortality and the composite endpoint of postoperative complications (all-cause mortality, congestive heart failure, stroke and renal impairment) occurring in the 30-day postoperative period. Results:Patients with initially higher levels of suPAR were at increased risk of postoperative mortality with a HR of 3.5 (95% CI 1.4 to 9.0, P=0.008) and postoperative complications with a HR of 2.7 (95% CI 1.5 to 5.1, P=0.002), per doubling in suPAR. After adjusting for the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation or Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score, suPAR remained associated with postoperative mortality with a HR 3.2 (95%?CI 1.2 to 8.6, P=0.025) and 2.7 (95% CI 1.0 to 7.8, P=0.061); and postoperative complications with a HR of 2.5 (95% CI 1.3 to 5.0, P=0.007) and 2.4 (95% CI 1.2 to 4.8, P=0.011), respectively. Conclusion:Higher baseline suPAR levels are associated with an increased risk for postoperative complications and mortality in patients with mild-moderate, asymptomatic AS undergoing later AVR surgery. Further validation in other subsets of AS individuals are warranted. Trial registration number:NCT00092677; Post-results.
| S-EPMC5786924 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Management of asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis remains debatable. Until now, evidence on the subject was limited to observational studies, registry data, and meta-analyses. Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Conservative Treatment in Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis trial thus is the first randomized controlled trial assessing the role of surgery in asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis. A critical evaluation of the study along with discussion on existing evidence has been provided in this appraisal.
| S-EPMC9218016 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsIn aortic stenosis (AS), there is poor association between symptoms and conventional markers of AS severity or left ventricular (LV) systolic function. This may reflect that symptoms arise from LV diastolic dysfunction or that aortic valve area (AVA) and transvalvular gradient do not reflect afterload. We aimed to study the impact of afterload (end-systolic wall stress [ESWS]) on the presence of symptoms in AS and to test whether symptoms are related to increased ESWS or LV remodelling.Methods and resultsIn a prospective study, ESWS was estimated by measuring LV wall thickness from MRI and estimated LV end systolic pressure from echocardiographic mean gradient and systolic blood pressure in 78 patients with severe AS scheduled for aortic valve replacement and 91 patients with asymptomatic severe AS. Symptomatic patients had lower indexed AVA (0.40±0.11 vs 0.45±0.09 cm2/m2, p=0.009). They had undergone more extensive remodelling (MRI LV mass index [LVMi]: 85±24 vs 69±17 g/m2, p<0.0001), had higher tricuspid regurgitant gradient (24±8 mm Hg vs 19 ± 7 mm Hg, p=0.0001) and poorer global longitudinal strain (-15.6±3.8 vs -19.9±3.2%, p<0.0001). ESWS was higher among symptomatic patients (96±51 vs 76±25 kdynes/cm2, p=0.003). Multivariate logistic regression identified echocardiographic relative wall thickness, tricuspid gradient, mitral deceleration time, early diastolic strain rate, MRI LVMi, MRI LV end-diastolic volume index and ESWS as independently associated with being symptomatic.ConclusionESWS can be estimated from multimodality imaging combining MRI and echocardiography. It is correlated with LV remodelling and neurohormonal activation and is independently associated with symptomatic status in AS.
| S-EPMC6519411 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between aortic valve area (AVA) obtained by Doppler echocardiography and outcome in patients with severe asymptomatic aortic stenosis and to define a specific threshold of AVA for identifying asymptomatic patients at very high risk based on their clinical outcome.Methods and resultsWe included 199 patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AVA ?1.0 cm(2)). The risk of events (death or need for aortic valve replacement) increased linearly on the scale of log hazard with decreased AVA (adjusted hazard ratio 1.17; 95% CI 1.06-1.29 per 0.1 cm(2) AVA decrement; P=0.002). Event-free survival at 12, 24, and 48 months was 63±6%, 51±6%, and 34±6%, respectively, for AVA 0.8 to 1 cm(2); 49±6%, 36±6%, and 26±6%, respectively, for AVA 0.6 to 0.8 cm(2); and 33±8%, 20±7%, and 11±5%, respectively, for AVA ?0.6 cm(2) (Ptrend=0.002). Patients with AVA ?0.6 cm(2) had a significantly increased risk of events compared with patients with AVA 0.8 to 1 cm(2) (adjusted hazard ratio 2.22; 95% CI 1.41-3.52; P=0.001), whereas patients with AVA 0.6 to 0.8 cm(2) had an increased risk of events compared with those with AVA 0.8 to 1 cm(2), but the difference was not statistically significant (adjusted hazard ratio 1.38; 95% CI 0.93-2.05; P=0.11). After adjustment for covariates and aortic valve replacement as a time-dependent variable, patients with AVA ?0.6 cm(2) had a significantly greater risk of all-cause mortality than patients with AVA >0.6 cm(2) (hazard ratio 3.39; 95% CI 1.80-6.40; P<0.0001).ConclusionsPatients with severe asymptomatic aortic stenosis and AVA ?0.6 cm(2) displayed an important increase in the risk of adverse events during short-term follow-up. Further studies are needed to determine whether elective aortic valve replacement improves outcome in this high-risk subgroup of patients.
| S-EPMC4889185 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe natural history and the management of patients with asymptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) have not been fully examined in the current era.ObjectiveTo determine the clinical outcomes of patients with asymptomatic AS using data from the Heart Valve Clinic International Database.Design, setting, and participantsThis registry was assembled by merging data from prospectively gathered institutional databases from 10 heart valve clinics in Europe, Canada, and the United States. Asymptomatic patients with an aortic valve area of 1.5 cm2 or less and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) greater than 50% at entry were considered for the present analysis. Data were collected from January 2001 to December 2014, and data were analyzed from January 2017 to July 2018.Main outcomes and measuresNatural history, need for aortic valve replacement (AVR), and survival of asymptomatic patients with moderate or severe AS at entry followed up in a heart valve clinic. Indications for AVR were based on current guideline recommendations.ResultsOf the 1375 patients included in this analysis, 834 (60.7%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 71 (13) years. A total of 861 patients (62.6%) had severe AS (aortic valve area less than 1.0 cm2). The mean (SD) overall survival during medical management (mean [SD] follow up, 27 [24] months) was 93% (1%), 86% (2%), and 75% (4%) at 2, 4, and 8 years, respectively. A total of 104 patients (7.6%) died under observation, including 57 patients (54.8%) from cardiovascular causes. The crude rate of sudden death was 0.65% over the duration of the study. A total of 542 patients (39.4%) underwent AVR, including 388 patients (71.6%) with severe AS at study entry and 154 (28.4%) with moderate AS at entry who progressed to severe AS. Those with severe AS at entry who underwent AVR did so at a mean (SD) of 14.4 (16.6) months and a median of 8.7 months. The mean (SD) 2-year and 4-year AVR-free survival rates for asymptomatic patients with severe AS at baseline were 54% (2%) and 32% (3%), respectively. In those undergoing AVR, the 30-day postprocedural mortality was 0.9%. In patients with severe AS at entry, peak aortic jet velocity (greater than 5 m/s) and LVEF (less than 60%) were associated with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality without AVR; these factors were also associated with postprocedural mortality in those patients with severe AS at baseline who underwent AVR (surgical AVR in 310 patients; transcatheter AVR in 78 patients).Conclusions and relevanceIn patients with asymptomatic AS followed up in heart valve centers, the risk of sudden death is low, and rates of overall survival are similar to those reported from previous series. Patients with severe AS at baseline and peak aortic jet velocity of 5.0 m/s or greater or LVEF less than 60% have increased risks of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality even after AVR. The potential benefit of early intervention should be considered in these high-risk patients.
| S-EPMC6583052 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Data are scarce on the role of aortic valve area (AVA) to identify those patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) who are at high risk of adverse events. We sought to explore the prognostic impact of AVA in asymptomatic patients with severe AS in a large observational database. Methods and Results Among 3815 consecutive patients with severe AS enrolled in the CURRENT AS (Contemporary Outcomes After Surgery and Medical Treatment in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis) registry, the present study included 1309 conservatively managed asymptomatic patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ?50%. The study patients were subdivided into 3 groups based on AVA (group 1: AVA >0.80 cm2, N=645; group 2: 0.8 cm2 ?AVA >0.6 cm2, N=465; and group 3: AVA ?0.6 cm2, N=199). The prevalence of very severe AS patients (peak aortic jet velocity ?5 m/s or mean aortic pressure gradient ?60 mm Hg) was 2.0%, 5.8%, and 26.1% in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The cumulative 5-year incidence of AVR was not different across the 3 groups (39.7%, 43.7%, and 39.9%; P=0.43). The cumulative 5-year incidence of the primary outcome measure (a composite of aortic valve-related death or heart failure hospitalization) was incrementally higher with decreasing AVA (24.1%, 29.1%, and 48.1%; P<0.001). After adjusting for confounders, the excess risk of group 3 and group 2 relative to group 1 for the primary outcome measure remained significant (hazard ratio, 2.21, 95% CI, 1.56-3.11, P<0.001; and hazard ratio, 1.34, 95% CI, 1.01-1.78, P=0.04, respectively). Conclusions AVA ?0.6 cm2 would be a useful marker to identify those high-risk patients with asymptomatic severe AS, who might benefit from early AVR. Clinical Trial Registration URL: www.umin.ac.jp . Unique identifier: UMIN000012140.
| S-EPMC6405588 | biostudies-literature