Outcomes in asymptomatic, severe aortic stenosis (original) (raw)
Related papers
Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions, 2018
Background: Although aortic valve replacement (AVR) can be lifesaving, many patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis do not undergo appropriate therapy. This study sought to examine the characteristics, outcomes, and reasons for not pursuing AVR in a contemporary cohort. Methods and Results: We examined 548 patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis not treated with AVR through March 2017. Patients were grouped according to AVR appropriateness based on the presence of medical futility. Demographics, rationale for no AVR therapy, and outcomes were assessed. There were 359 (65.5%) potentially appropriate candidates for AVR and 189 (34.5%) others patients with futility. Among potentially appropriate patients, 62.1% had severe symptoms, 74.4% had not been referred for AVR, and 40.1% were low risk. Patient refusal was common (54.6%), with incorrect symptom assignment or aortic stenosis severity classification accounting for nearly all other explanations. Compared with patients wi...
Asymptomatic versus Symptomatic Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis
Scientific reports, 2018
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 adjustin...
Circulation journal : official journal of the Japanese Circulation Society, 2017
There is discordance regarding the effect of symptom status before aortic valve replacement (AVR) on long-term outcome after AVR in severe aortic stenosis (AS).Methods and Results:The CURRENT AS registry is a multicenter retrospective registry enrolling 3,815 consecutive patients with severe AS. Among 1,196 patients managed with the initial AVR strategy, long-term clinical outcomes were compared between the symptomatic patients (n=905), and asymptomatic patients (n=291). Median follow-up interval was 1337 days with a 91% follow-up rate at 2 years. AVR was performed in 886 patients (98%) in the symptomatic group and in 287 patients (99%) in the asymptomatic group. Symptomatic patients were older and more often had comorbidities than asymptomatic patients with similar echocardiographic AS severity. The cumulative 5-year incidences of all-cause death and heart failure (HF) hospitalization were significantly higher in symptomatic patients than in asymptomatic patients (25.6% vs. 15.4%, ...
Therapeutic decisions for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis: room for improvement?
European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, 2009
Objective: Symptomatic severe aortic stenosis is an indication for aortic valve replacement. Some patients are denied intervention. This study provides insight into the proportion of conservatively treated patients and into the reasons why conservative treatment is chosen. Methods: Of a patient cohort presenting with severe aortic stenosis between 2004 and 2007, medical records were retrospectively analyzed. Only symptomatic patients (n = 179) were included. We studied their characteristics, treatment decisions, and survival. Results: Mean age was 71 years, 50% were male. During follow-up (mean 17 months, 99% complete) 76 (42%) patients were scheduled for surgical treatment (63 conventional valve replacement, 10 transcatheter, 1 heart transplantation, 2 waiting list) versus 101 (56%) who received medical treatment. Reasons for medical treatment were: perceived high operative risk (34%), symptoms regarded mild (19%), stenosis perceived non-severe (14%), and patient preference (9%). In 5% the decision was pending at the time of the analysis and in 20% the reason was other/unclear. Mean age of the surgical group was 68 years versus 73 years for medically treated patients (p = 0.004). Predicted mortality (EuroSCORE) was 7.8% versus 11.3% (p = 0.006). During follow-up 12 patients died in the surgical group (no 30-day operative mortality), versus 28 in the medical group. Two-year survival was 90% versus 69%. Conclusions: A large proportion (56%) of symptomatic patients does not undergo aortic valve replacement. Often operative risk is estimated (too) high or hemodynamic severity and symptomatic status are misclassified. Interdisciplinary team discussions between cardiologists and surgeons should be encouraged to optimize patient selection for surgery.
Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, 2009
Background— Some patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) do not undergo aortic valve replacement (AVR) despite demonstrated symptomatic and survival advantages and despite unequivocal guideline recommendations for surgical evaluation. Methods and Results— In 3 large tertiary care institutions (university, Veterans Affairs, and private practice) in Washtenaw County, Mich, patients were identified with unrefuted echocardiography/Doppler evidence of severe AS during calendar year 2005. Medical records were retrospectively reviewed for symptoms, referral for AVR, calculated operative risk for AVR, and rationale as to why patients did not undergo valve replacement. Of 369 patients with severe AS, 191 (52%) did not undergo AVR. Of these, 126 (66%, 34% of total) had symptoms consistent with AS. The most common reasons cited for absent intervention were comorbidities with high operative risk (61 patients [48%]), patent refusal (24 patients [19%]), and symptoms unrelated to AS ...
Circulation, 2022
Background: Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) represents a class I indication in symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, indications for early SAVR in asymptomatic patients with severe AS and normal left ventricular function remain debated. Method: The Aortic Valve replAcemenT versus conservative treatment in Asymptomatic seveRe aortic stenosis (AVATAR) trial is an investigator-initiated international prospective randomized controlled trial that evaluated the safety and efficacy of early SAVR in the treatment of asymptomatic patients with severe AS, according to common criteria (valve area ≤1 cm2 with aortic jet velocity >4 m/s or a mean trans-aortic gradient ≥40 mm Hg), and with normal LV function. Negative exercise testing was mandatory for inclusion. The primary hypothesis was that early SAVR would reduce the primary composite endpoint of all-cause death, acute myocardial infarction, stroke or unplanned hospitalization for heart failure, as compared to a conservative strategy according to guidelines. The trial was designed as event-driven to reach a minimum of 35 prespecified events. The study was performed in 9 centers in 7 European countries. Results: Between June 2015 and September 2020, 157 patients (mean age 67 years, 57% men) were randomly allocated to early surgery (n=78) or conservative treatment (n=79). Follow-up was completed in May 2021. Overall median follow-up was 32 months: 28 months in the early surgery group and 35 months in the conservative treatment group. There was a total of 39 events, 13 in early surgery and 26 in conservative treatment group. In the early surgery group, 72 patients (92.3%) underwent SAVR with operative mortality of 1.4%. In an intention-to-treat analysis, patients randomized to early surgery had a significantly lower incidence of primary composite endpoint than those in the conservative arm (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.23-0.90, p=0.02). There was no statistical difference in secondary endpoints, including all-cause mortality, first heart failure hospitalizations, major bleeding or thromboembolic complications, but trends were consistent with the primary outcome. Conclusion: In asymptomatic patients with severe AS, early surgery reduced a primary composite of all-cause death, acute myocardial infarction, stroke or unplanned hospitalization for heart failure compared with conservative treatment. This randomized trial provides preliminary support for early SAVR once AS becomes severe, regardless of symptoms.
Diagnosis and management of patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis
Aortic stenosis (AS) is a disease that progresses slowly for years without symptoms, so patients need to be carefully managed with appropriate follow up and referred for aortic valve replacement in a timely manner. Development of symptoms is a clear indication for aortic valve intervention in patients with severe AS. The decision for early surgery in patients with asymptomatic severe AS is more complex. In this review, we discuss how to identify high-risk patients with asymptomatic severe AS who may benefit from early surgery.
Challenges in the management of severe asymptomatic aortic stenosis
European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, 2011
It is well established that the treatment of symptomatic aortic stenosis is timely aortic valve replacement. By contrast, the optimum treatment of severe asymptomatic aortic stenosis is not clear. There are no randomised controlled trials on which to base management. Current guidelines recommend a watch-and-see approach, with surgery deferred until symptoms develop, unless certain criteria, for example, severe leftventricular hypertrophy or an abnormal exercise test, are met. This strategy is based on the observation that asymptomatic patients have a low risk of sudden death. It ignores, however, the long-term consequences of irreversible left-ventricular remodelling resulting from a high afterload, which could potentially adversely affect perioperative and long-term outcomes. Observational studies suggest that early aortic valve replacement provides long-term outcomes superior to deferred surgery. We suggest that clinicians should consider this approach when planning how best to manage patients with severe asymptomatic aortic stenosis.
Circulation Journal
Background: There has not been a previous report on the long-term outcomes of those patients who refuse aortic valve replacement (AVR) despite physicians' recommendations. Methods and Results: Among 3,815 consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) enrolled in the CURRENT AS registry, the study population comprised 2,005 symptomatic patients, who were subdivided into 3 groups by their treatment strategy and the reasons for conservative strategy (Initial AVR group: n=905; Patient rejection group: n=256; Physician judgment group, n=844). The primary outcome measure was a composite of aortic valve-related death and heart failure hospitalization. Patients in the patient rejection group as compared with those in the physician judgment group were younger, and had less comorbidities, and lower surgical risk scores. The cumulative 5-year incidence of the primary outcome measure in the patient rejection group was markedly higher than that in the initial AVR group, and was similar to that in the physician judgment group (60.7%, 19.0%, and 66.4%, respectively). Conclusions: Patient rejection was the reason for non-referral to AVR in nearly one-quarter of the symptomatic patients with severe AS who were managed conservatively. The dismal outcome in patients who refused AVR was similar to that in patients who were not referred to AVR based on physician judgment despite less comorbidities and lower surgical risk scores in the former than in the latter.