Impact Of Aortic Valve Replacement Research Articles

Short-Term Changes in Arterial Stiffness Measured by 2D Speckle Tracking in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

Arterial stiffness has received increasing interest as a cardiovascular marker in patients with aortic valve stenosis (AS). So far, studies on the impact of aortic valve replacement (AVR) on arterial stiffness have been equivocal. Two-dimensional speckle tracking (2DST) is a novel, non-invasive method to measure the motion of the vessel wall. In this prospective observational study, we aimed to assess the change in arterial stiffness of the common carotid artery (CCA) measured by 2DST in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). A total of 47 patients were included in the study (age 80.04 ± 6.065 years). Peak circumferential strain (CS) was significantly improved after TAVI (4.50 ± 2.292 vs. 5.12 ± 2.958, p = 0.012), as was the peak strain rate (CSR) (0.85 ± 0.567 vs. 1.35 ± 0.710, p = 0.002). Body mass index (BMI), mean arterial pressure (MAP) and hemodynamic parameters were associated with this change. 2DST results did not correlate with aortic pulse wave velocity (aPWV) or augmentation index normalized to heart rate (AIx@75), suggesting a distinct difference between arterial stiffness of the CCA and other stiffness parameters. 2DST seems to be a promising new tool to assess arterial stiffness in TAVI patients.

Clinical impact of aortic valve replacement in patients with moderate mixed aortic valve disease.

Information is scarce regarding the clinical implications of aortic valve replacement (AVR) for patients suffering from moderate mixed aortic valve disease (MAVD), characterized by a combination of moderate aortic stenosis (AS) and regurgitation (AR). The objective of this retrospective study was to explore the clinical effects of AVR in individuals with moderate MAVD. We examined the clinical data from patients with moderate MAVD and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, who had undergone echocardiography in the period spanning from 2010 to 2018. Moderate AS was defined as aortic valve area index of 0.60-0.85 cm2/m2 and peak velocity of 3.0-4.0 m/s. Moderate AR was defined as a vena contracta width of 3.0-6.0 mm. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death and heart failure hospitalization. Among 88 patients (mean age, 74.4 ± 6.8 years; 48.9%, men), 44 (50.0%) required AVR during a median follow-up period of 3.3 years (interquartile range, 0.5-4.9). Mean values of specific aortic valve variables are as follows: aortic valve area index, 0.64 ± 0.04 cm2/m2; peak velocity, 3.40 ± 0.30 m/s; and vena contracta width, 4.1 ± 0.7 mm. The primary endpoint occurred in 32 (36.4%) patients during a median follow-up duration of 5.3 years (interquartile range, 3.2-8.0). Multivariable analysis revealed that AVR was significantly associated with the endpoint (hazard ratio, 0.248; 95% confidence interval, 0.107-0.579; p = 0.001) after adjusting for age, B-type natriuretic peptide, and the Charlson comorbidity index. Patients who underwent AVR during follow-up had significantly lower incidence rates of the endpoint than those managed with medical treatment (10.2% vs. 44.1% at 5 years; p < 0.001). Approximately half of the patients diagnosed with moderate MAVD eventually necessitated AVR throughout the period of observation, leading to positive clinical results. Vigilant tracking of these patients and watchful monitoring for signs requiring AVR during this time frame are essential.

Impact of aortic valve replacement in symptomatic low-risk patients with less than severe aortic stenosis

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...

Evolution and Prognostic Impact of Cardiac Damage After Aortic Valve Replacement

BackgroundThe impact of aortic valve replacement (AVR) on progression/regression of extravalvular cardiac damage and its association with subsequent prognosis is unknown. ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to describe the evolution of cardiac damage post-AVR and its association with outcomes. MethodsPatients undergoing transcatheter or surgical AVR from the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) 2 and 3 trials were pooled and classified by cardiac damage stage at baseline and 1 year (stage 0, no damage; stage 1, left ventricular damage; stage 2, left atrial or mitral valve damage; stage 3, pulmonary vasculature or tricuspid valve damage; and stage 4, right ventricular damage). Proportional hazards models determined association between change in cardiac damage post-AVR and 2-year outcomes. ResultsAmong 1,974 patients, 121 (6.1%) were stage 0, 287 (14.5%) stage 1, 1,014 (51.4%) stage 2, 412 (20.9%) stage 3, and 140 (7.1%) stage 4 pre-AVR. Two-year mortality was associated with extent of cardiac damage at baseline and 1 year. Compared with baseline, cardiac damage improved in ∼15%, remained unchanged in ∼60%, and worsened in ∼25% of patients at 1 year. The 1-year change in cardiac damage stage was independently associated with mortality (adjusted HR for improvement: 0.49; no change: 1.00; worsening: 1.95; P = 0.023) and composite of death or heart failure hospitalization (adjusted HR for improvement: 0.60; no change: 1.00; worsening: 2.25; P < 0.001) at 2 years. ConclusionsIn patients undergoing AVR, extent of extravalvular cardiac damage at baseline and its change at 1 year have important prognostic implications. These findings suggest that earlier detection of aortic stenosis and intervention before development of irreversible cardiac damage may improve global cardiac function and prognosis. (PARTNER II Trial: Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valves II - XT Intermediate and High Risk [PII A], NCT01314313; The PARTNER II Trial: Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valves - PII B [PARTNERII B], NCT02184442; and PARTNER 3 Trial: Safety and Effectiveness of the SAPIEN 3 Transcatheter Heart Valve in Low Risk Patients With Aortic Stenosis [P3], NCT02675114)

Arterial Stiffness in Aortic Stenosis and the Impact of Aortic Valve Replacement.

The most common cause for interventional valve treatment is aortic stenosis. A cardinal symptom of aortic stenosis is heart failure due to the increased load exerted on the left ventricle. However, the left ventricular load is not solely determined based on the degree of aortic stenosis but is also impacted by arterial stiffness. The combined load can be determined by valvulo-arterial impedance (Zva), which is associated with poor outcome in aortic stenosis. We recently demonstrated low measures of systemic arterial stiffness in patients with aortic stenosis, and that arterial stiffness was increased after surgical aortic valve replacement. The results indicated a masked arterial stiffness in aortic stenosis when using methods incorporating peripheral arterial segments. Available studies using several different methods to assess arterial stiffness in relatively small aortic stenosis cohorts examined before and after either surgical or transcatheter aortic valve replacement/intervention have generated contradictory results. In this commentary, we present a detailed literature review to explore how different methods and measures of arterial stiffness in aortic stenosis capture or not, a masked arterial stiffness in aortic stenosis and possible reasons for the observed results. Future studies validating a non-invasive reproducible method to assess arterial stiffness in aortic stenosis patients could potentially lead to an implementation in pre-interventional risk assessment for aortic stenosis.

Cardiovascular Risk Factors and Hemodynamic Measures as Determinants of Increased Arterial Stiffness Following Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement.

Valvular and arterial function are tightly intertwined, both in terms of structural changes and hemodynamics. While proximal valvulo-vascular coupling contributes to the cardiovascular consequences of aortic stenosis, less is known on how peripheral arterial stiffness relates to aortic valve disease. Previous studies have shown conflicting results regarding the impact of aortic valve replacement on arterial stiffness. The aim of the present study was therefore to determine predictors of arterial stiffness in patients with and without aortic valve disease undergoing cardiac surgery. Cardio ankle vascular index (CAVI) and carotid femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV) were measured to determine arterial stiffness the day before and 3 days after surgery for either ascending aortic or aortic valve disease. Stratification on indication for surgery revealed that CAVI was significantly lower in patients with aortic valve stenosis (n = 45) and aortic valve regurgitation (n=30) compared with those with isolated ascending aortic dilatation (n = 13). After surgery, a significant increased CAVI was observed in aortic stenosis (median 1.34, IQR 0.74–2.26, p < 0.001) and regurgitation (median 1.04, IQR 0.01–1.49, p = 0.003) patients while cfPWV was not significantly changed. Age, diabetes, low body mass index, low pre-operative CAVI, as well as changes in ejection time were independently associated with increased CAVI after surgery. The results of the present study suggest aortic valve disease as cause of underestimation of arterial stiffness when including peripheral segments. We report cardiovascular risk factors and pinpoint the hemodynamic aspect ejection time to be associated with increased CAVI after aortic valve surgery.

Impact of aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis on organic and functional mitral regurgitation.

AimsConcurrent mitral regurgitation (MR) influences treatment considerations in patients with severe aortic stenosis (sAS). Limited information exists regarding haemodynamic effects of sAS on MR severity and outcome of these patients. We assessed the impact of aortic valve replacement (AVR) on MR according to mechanism in patients with sAS and MR.Methods and resultsIn patients with sAS who received surgical or transcatheter AVR from 2008 to 2017, those with effective mitral regurgitant orifice area (ERO) ≥ 10 mm2 prior to AVR were evaluated. The change in MR after AVR was considered significant when there was at least one grade difference. We compared the all‐cause mortality of patients with and without improvement in MR. Of 234 patients with sAS and MR (age 80 ± 9 years, 52% male, ERO 19 ± 7 mm2), organic and functional MR were present in 166 (71%) and 68 (29%), respectively. MR improved in 136 (58%); improvement occurred with similar frequency in organic versus functional MR (59% and 57%, P = 0.88). Associated determinants were absence of atrial fibrillation in organic MR [odds ratio (OR) 2.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00–4.37; P = 0.049] and indexed aortic valve area (iAVA) ≤ 0.40 cm2 in functional MR (OR 3.28, 95% CI 1.13–9.47; P = 0.028). In the overall cohort, mitral annulus diameter < 3 cm (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.02–2.97; P = 0.041) and QRS duration < 115 ms (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.00–2.98; P = 0.049) were independently associated with improvement in MR. During median follow‐up of 3.5 years, lack of improvement in MR was not associated with higher mortality in the overall cohort of patients with ERO ≥ 20 mm2 [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.71, 95% CI 0.90–3.27; P = 0.10, adjusted for age, New York Heart Association III or IV, diabetes, and creatinine ≥ 2.0 mg/dL]. Lack of improvement in organic MR was associated with higher mortality (adjusted HR 3.36, 95% CI 1.40–8.05; P < 0.01). In patients with functional MR, change in MR was not associated with mortality (HR 1.24, 95% CI 0.44–3.47; P = 0.68).ConclusionsIn nearly 60% of patients with sAS and MR, MR improved after AVR, even in the majority of patients with organic MR. Absence of atrial fibrillation in organic MR, iAVA ≤ 0.40 cm2 in functional MR, and mitral annulus diameter < 3 cm and QRS duration < 115 ms in the overall population were associated with MR improvement. Post‐operative improvement in organic MR was associated with better survival.

Impact of Surgical and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis.

The aim of this study was to assess the impact of aortic valve replacement (AVR) on survival in patients with each subclass of low-gradient (LG) aortic stenosis (AS) and to compare outcomes following surgical AVR (SAVR) and transcatheter AVR (TAVR). LG severe AS encompasses a wide variety of pathophysiology, including classical low-flow, LG (LF-LG), paradoxical LF-LG, and normal-flow, LG (NF-LG) AS, and uncertainty exists regarding the impact of AVR on each subclass of LG AS. PubMed and Embase were queried through October 2020 to identify studies comparing survival with different management strategies (SAVR, TAVR, and conservative) in patients with LG AS. Pairwise meta-analysis comparing AVR versus conservative management and network meta-analysis comparing SAVR versus TAVR versus conservative management were performed. Thirty-two studies with a total of 6,515 patients and a median follow-up time of 24.2months (interquartile range: 36.5months) were included. AVR was associated with a significant decrease in all-cause mortality in classical LF-LG (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.36 to 0.48), paradoxical LF-LG (HR: 0.41; 95%CI: 0.29 to 0.57), and NF-LG (HR: 0.41; 95%CI: 0.27 to 0.62) AS compared with conservative management. SAVR and TAVR were each associated with a decrease in all-cause mortality in classical LF-LG (HR: 0.46 [95%CI: 0.38 to 0.55] and 0.49 [95%CI: 0.37 to 0.64], respectively), paradoxical LF-LG (HR: 0.42 [95%CI: 0.28 to 0.65] and 0.42 [95%CI: 0.25 to 0.72], respectively), and NF-LG (HR: 0.40 [95%CI: 0.21 to 0.77] and 0.46 [95%CI: 0.26 to 0.84], respectively) AS compared with conservative management. No significant difference was observed between SAVR and TAVR. In all subclasses of LG AS, AVR was associated with a significant decrease in all-cause mortality regardless of surgical or transcatheter approach.

Impact of Valve Type (Ross vs. Mechanical) on Health-Related Quality of Life in Children and Young Adults with Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

The impact of aortic valve replacement (AVR) type on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in adolescents and young adults is unclear, but may vary depending on need for anticoagulation or re-intervention. We sought to determine the differences in HRQOL following AVR with either the Ross procedure or mechanical AVR in this young population. Patients 14-35years old and at least 1year post-AVR were included. HRQOL was assessed using the Short Form-36 (SF-36). Valve-specific concerns regarding anticoagulation and reoperation were also assessed. Clinical outcome data were obtained by chart review. A total of 51 patients were enrolled: 24 (47%) Ross and 27 (53%) mechanical AVR. Ross patients were younger at time of AVR (16 vs. 22years, p < 0.01) and study enrollment (23.7 vs 29.5years, p < 0.01). Median follow-up from AVR to study enrollment was similar (5.4years for Ross vs. 5.6years for mechanical, p = 0.62). At last follow-up, clinical outcomes including cardiac function, functional class, and aortic valve re-intervention rates were similar between groups, although mechanical valve patients had more bleeding events (p = 0.012). SF-36 scores were generally high for the entire cohort, with no significant difference between groups in any domain. Mechanical AVR patients reported more concern about frequency of blood draws (p < 0.01). Concern for reoperation was similar between both groups. Despite more bleeding events and concern about the frequency of blood draws, adolescents and young adults with mechanical AVR reported similarly high levels of HRQOL compared to those following Ross AVR.

Left ventricular reverse remodeling and function by strain analysis in aortic stenosis: A CMR analysis of the EPICHEART study

Introduction and objectivesIn severe aortic stenosis (AS), the impact of aortic valve replacement (AVR) on left ventricular (LV) systolic function assessed by strain and measured by echocardiography or cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) has been controversial. We aimed to investigate LV systolic myocardial function changes six months after AVR using global longitudinal (GLS), circumferential (GCS) and radial (GRS) strain derived from CMR imaging. MethodsWe included 39 severe AS patients (69.3±7.8 years; 61.5% male) with preserved LV ejection fraction (LVEF) who were recruited as part of the EPICHEART study and underwent successful AVR (aortic valvular area: 0.8 cm2 (IQR: 0.2) pre- to 1.8 cm2 (IQR:0.5) post-AVR). Structural and functional parameters were assessed at baseline and six months after AVR, including LV GRS, GCS and GLS analysis by CMR, using cine short-axial and two-, three-, and four-chamber long-axial view. Comparison between baseline and postoperative LV remodeling was performed using Student t-test and Wilcoxon test. ResultsAt six-month follow-up, LV mass, end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes, stroke volume, cardiac output, lateral E/e’, tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion, right ventricular (RV) S wave velocity, GLS [-15.6% (IQR: 4.39) to -13.7% (IQR: 4.62)] and GCS [-17.8±3.58% to -16.1±2.94%] reduced significantly, while LVEF and GRS remained unchanged and lateral e’ velocity increased. ConclusionsDespite favorable reverse LV structural and diastolic functional remodeling six months following AVR, GLS and GCS assessed by CMR reduced compared to baseline, LVEF remained unchanged. The clinical utility and timing of assessment of postoperative strain changes as a marker of systolic function progression needs further research.

Severe aortic stenosis and chronic kidney disease: Outcomes and impact of aortic valve replacement

To analyze the relationship between chronic kidney disease(CKD) stages and all-cause and cardiovascular mortality and evaluate the effect of aortic-valve replacement(AVR) versus conservative management according to kidney function in patients with severe aortic stenosis(AS). This analysis included 4119 patients with severe AS. The population was divided into four groups according to the baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate: no CKD, mild CKD, moderate CKD, and severe CKD. The five-year survival rate was 71 ± 1% for patients without CKD, 62 ± 2% for those with mild CKD, 54 ± 3% for those with moderate CKD, and 34 ± 4% for those with severe CKD ( P < 0.001). By multivariable analysis, patients with moderate or severe CKD had a significantly higher risk of all-cause (HR[95%CI] = 1.36[1.08–1.71]; P = 0.009 and HR[95%CI] = 2.16[1.67–2.79]; P < 0.001, respectively) and cardiovascular mortality (HR[95%CI] = 1.39[1.03–1.88]; P = 0.031 and HR[95%CI] = 1.69[1.18–2.41]; P = 0.004, respectively) than patients without CKD. Despite more symptoms, AVR was less frequent in moderate ( P = 0.002) and severe CKD ( P < 0.001). AVR was associated with a marked reduction in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality versus conservative management for each CKD group (all P < 0.001). The joint-test showed no interaction between AVR and CKD stages ( P = 0.676) indicating a non-differential effect of AVR across stages of CKD. After propensity matching, AVR was still associated with substantially better survival for each CKD stage relative to conservative management (all P < 0.0017) ( Fig. 1 ). In severe AS, moderate and severe CKD are associated with increased mortality and decreased referral to AVR. AVR markedly reduces all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, regardless of the CKD stage. Therefore, CKD should not discourage physicians from considering AVR.

Impact of Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Stenosis on Coexisting Mitral Stenosis.

Purpose: The course of coexisting mitral valve stenosis is not clear after aortic valve replacement (AVR) for aortic stenosis (AS). We investigated the effect of AVR for AS on coexisting mitral stenosis (MS).Methods: Between January 2002 and December 2019, 1338 consecutive patients underwent surgical AVR at Shiga University of Medical Science. Of them, 34 patients with moderate MS (mitral valve area [MVA]: 1.5–2.0 cm2) were included in the present study. We evaluated the postoperative clinical outcomes in these patients.Results: Mean MVA in our cohort significantly increased 1 week after operation compared with preoperative values, and the change was maintained for 5 years after surgery. Follow-up was completed in 94.1% (32/34) patients, and mean follow-up duration was 4.0 ± 3.0 years. No patients underwent mitral surgery for remaining MS after AVR during postoperative follow-up.Conclusion: AVR for AS resulted in increased MVA in patients with MS, and the change was maintained during follow-up.

The Prospects of Secondary Moderate Mitral Regurgitation after Aortic Valve Replacement -Meta-Analysis.

Aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis represents one of the most frequent surgical procedures on heart valves. These patients often have concomitant mitral regurgitation. To reveal whether the moderate mitral regurgitation will improve after aortic valve replacement alone, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. We identified 27 studies with 4452 patients that underwent aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis and had co-existent mitral regurgitation. Primary end point was the impact of aortic valve replacement on the concomitant mitral regurgitation. Secondary end points were the analysis of the left ventricle reverse remodeling and long-term survival. Our results showed that there was significant improvement in mitral regurgitation postoperatively (RR, 1.65; 95% CI 1.36–2.00; p < 0.00001) with the average decrease of 0.46 (WMD; 95% CI 0.35–0.57; p < 0.00001). The effect is more pronounced in the elderly population. Perioperative mortality was higher (p < 0.0001) and long-term survival significantly worse (p < 0.00001) in patients that had moderate/severe mitral regurgitation preoperatively. We conclude that after aortic valve replacement alone there are fair chances but for only slight improvement in concomitant mitral regurgitation. The secondary moderate mitral regurgitation should be addressed at the time of aortic valve replacement. A more conservative approach should be followed for elderly and high-risk patients.

Severe Aortic Stenosis and Chronic Kidney Disease: Outcomes and Impact of Aortic Valve Replacement.

BackgroundThe prognostic significance of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in severe aortic stenosis is poorly understood and no studies have yet evaluated the effect of aortic‐valve replacement (AVR) versus conservative management on long‐term mortality by stage of CKD.Methods and ResultsWe included 4119 patients with severe aortic stenosis. The population was divided into 4 groups according to the baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate: no CKD, mild CKD, moderate CKD, and severe CKD. The 5‐year survival rate was 71±1% for patients without CKD, 62±2% for those with mild CKD, 54±3% for those with moderate CKD, and 34±4% for those with severe CKD (P<0.001). By multivariable analysis, patients with moderate or severe CKD had a significantly higher risk of all‐cause (hazard ratio [HR] [95% CI]=1.36 [1.08–1.71]; P=0.009 and HR [95% CI]=2.16 [1.67–2.79]; P<0.001, respectively) and cardiovascular mortality (HR [95% CI]=1.39 [1.03–1.88]; P=0.031 and HR [95% CI]=1.69 [1.18–2.41]; P=0.004, respectively) than patients without CKD. Despite more symptoms, AVR was less frequent in moderate (P=0.002) and severe CKD (P<0.001). AVR was associated with a marked reduction in all‐cause and cardiovascular mortality versus conservative management for each CKD group (all P<0.001). The joint‐test showed no interaction between AVR and CKD stages (P=0.676) indicating a nondifferentialeffect of AVR across stages of CKD. After propensity matching, AVR was still associated with substantially better survival for each CKD stage relative to conservative management (all P<0.0017).ConclusionsIn severe aortic stenosis, moderate and severe CKD are associated with increased mortality and decreased referral to AVR. AVR markedly reduces all‐cause and cardiovascular mortality, regardless of the CKD stage. Therefore, CKD should not discourage physicians from considering AVR.

Impact of Aortic Valve Replacement for Severe Aortic Stenosis on Perioperative Outcomes Following Major Noncardiac Surgery

ObjectiveTo compare the incidence of major adverse cardiac events and death among severe aortic stenosis patients with and without aortic valve replacement (AVR) before noncardiac surgery. Patients and MethodsWe retrospectively evaluated 491 severe aortic stenosis patients undergoing non-emergency/non-urgent elevated-risk noncardiac surgery between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2013, including 203 patients (mean age, 74±10 years, 63.5% men) with previous AVR and 288 patients (mean age, 77±12 years, 55.6% men) without prior AVR. ResultsThe incidence of major adverse cardiac events was significantly lower in the AVR group (5.4% vs 20.5%; P<.001), primarily because of the lower incidence of new or worsening heart failure (2.5% vs 17.7%; P<.001), compared with the non-AVR group. No significant differences were observed between the groups with and without AVR in the incidence of death (2.5% vs 3.5%; P=.56), myocardial infarction (0.5% vs 1.4%; P=.48), ventricular arrhythmia (0.0% vs 0.7%; P=.51), or stroke (0.0% vs 0.7%; P=.51) at 30-days. At a median follow-up of 4.2 (interquartile range,1.3-7.5) years, overall mortality was significantly worse in patients without versus with AVR (5-year rate: 57.0% vs 32.7%; P<.001). Symptomatic patients without AVR (n=35) had the worst outcomes overall, including increased 30-day and overall mortality rates, compared with the AVR-group and asymptomatic non-AVR patients. ConclusionIn patients with severe aortic stenosis, AVR before noncardiac surgery was associated with decreased incidence of heart failure after noncardiac surgery and improved overall survival without differences in 30-day survival, myocardial infarction, ventricular arrhythmia, or stroke. Preoperative AVR should be considered in symptomatic patients for whom the benefit of AVR is greatest.

Hemodynamics and Prognostic Impact of Concomitant Mitral Stenosis in Patients Undergoing Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Stenosis.

Mitral stenosis frequently coexists in patients with severe aortic stenosis. Mitral stenosis severity evaluation is challenging in the setting of combined aortic stenosis and mitral stenosis because of hemodynamic interactions between the 2 valve lesions. The impact of aortic valve replacement (AVR) for severe aortic stenosis on mitral stenosis is unknown. This study aimed to assess the effect of AVR on mitral stenosis hemodynamics and the clinical outcomes of patients with severe aortic stenosis with and without mitral stenosis. We retrospectively investigated patients who underwent surgical AVR or transcatheter AVR for severe aortic stenosis from 2008 to 2015. Mean transmitral gradient by Doppler echocardiography ≥4 mm Hg was identified as mitral stenosis; patients were then stratified according to mitral valve area (MVA, by continuity equation) as >2.0 cm2 or ≤2.0 cm2. MVA before and after AVR in patients with mitral stenosis were evaluated. Clinical outcomes of patients with and without mitral stenosis were compared using 1:2 matching for age, sex, left ventricular ejection fraction, method of AVR (surgical AVR versus transcatheter AVR) and year of AVR. Of 190 patients with severe aortic stenosis and mitral stenosis (age 76±9 years, 42% men), 184 were matched with 362 with severe aortic stenosis without mitral stenosis. Among all mitral stenosis patients, the mean MVA increased after AVR by 0.26±0.59 cm2 (from 2.00±0.50 to 2.26±0.62 cm2, P<0.01). MVA increased in 105 (55%) and remained unchanged in 34 (18%). Indexed stroke volume ≤45 mL/m2 (odds ratio [OR] 2.40; 95% CI, 1.15-5.01; P=0.020) and transcatheter AVR (OR, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.17-4.77; P=0.017) were independently associated with increase in MVA. Of 107 with significant mitral stenosis (MVA ≤2.0 cm2), MVA increased to >2.0 cm2 after AVR in 52 (49%, pseudo mitral stenosis) and remained ≤2.0 cm2 in 55 (51%, true mitral stenosis). During follow-up of median 2.9 (0.7-4.9) years, true mitral stenosis was an independent predictor of all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.20-2.94; P<0.01). MVA improved after AVR in nearly half of patients with severe aortic stenosis and mitral stenosis. MVA remained ≤2.0 cm2 (true mitral stenosis) in nearly half of patients with severe aortic stenosis and significant mitral stenosis; this was associated with worse survival among patients undergoing AVR for severe aortic stenosis.

The impact of aortic valve replacement on survival in patients with normal flow low gradient severe aortic stenosis: a propensity-matched comparison.

To assess the survival benefit of aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients with normal flow low gradient severe aortic stenosis (AS). A retrospective study of prospectively collected data of 276 patients (mean age 75 ± 15 years, 51% male) with normal transaortic flow [flow rate (FR) ≥200 mL/s or stroke volume index (SVi) ≥35 mL/m2] and severe AS (aortic valve area <1.0 cm2). The outcome measure was all-cause mortality. Of the 276 patients, 151 (55%) were medically treated, while 125 (45%) underwent an AVR. Over a mean follow-up of 3.2 ± 1.8 years (range 0-6.9 years), a total of 96 (34.8%) deaths occurred: 17 (13.6%) in AVR group vs. 79 (52.3%) in those medically treated, when transaortic flow was defined by FR (P < 0.001). When transaortic flow was defined by SVi, a total of 79 (31.3%) deaths occurred: 18 (15.1%) in AVR group vs. 61 (45.9%) in medically treated (P < 0.001). In a propensity-matched multivariable Cox regression analysis adjusting for age, gender, body surface area, smoking, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, atrial fibrillation, peripheral vascular disease, chronic kidney disease, left ventricular ejection fraction, left ventricular mass, and mean aortic gradient, not having AVR was associated with a 6.3-fold higher hazard ratio (HR) of all-cause mortality [HR 6.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.34-13.16; P < 0.001] when flow was defined by FR. In the SVi-guided model, it was 3.83-fold (HR 3.83, 95% CI 2.30-6.37; P < 0.001). In patients with normal flow low gradient severe AS, AVR was associated with a significantly improved survival compared with those who received standard medical treatment.

HEMODYNAMIC IMPACT OF ISOLATED AORTIC VALVE REPLACEMENT IN PATIENTS WITH SEVERE AORTIC STENOSIS AND MITRAL STENOSIS: A DOPPLER ECHOCARDIOGRAPHIC STUDY

Mitral stenosis (MS) frequently coexists in patients with severe aortic stenosis (sAS). However, the impact of aortic valve replacement (AVR) on MS is unknown. We retrospectively investigated patients who underwent AVR or transcatheter AVR (TAVR) for sAS from 2008 to 2015. Transmitral gradient by

1139Prognostic impact of aortic valve replacement in contemporary low-gradient aortic stenosis patients with lack of contractile reserve

1139Prognostic impact of aortic valve replacement in contemporary low-gradient aortic stenosis patients with lack of contractile reserve

Impact of Preoperative Left Ventricular Remodelling Patterns on Long-Term Outcome after Aortic Valve Replacement for Severe Aortic Stenosis

Objectives: Four patterns of left ventricular (LV) geometry have been described in aortic stenosis (AS): normal geometry, concentric remodelling (LVCR), concentric hypertrophy (CH), and eccentric hypertrophy (EH). LVCR and CH are independently associated with an increased risk of mortality in patients with medically managed AS. No data are available on the impact of aortic valve replacement (AVR) on the negative prognostic implications of LV remodelling patterns. Methods: This study evaluated the long-term postoperative prognostic value of preoperative LV patterns in a cohort of 779 patients (mean age 73 years) with severe AS and ejection fraction >50% undergoing AVR. Results: Long-term postoperative all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in patients with LVCR (adjusted HR = 0.50 [0.17-1.45], p = 0.202, and 0.45 [0.10-2.15], p = 0.373, respectively), CH (adjusted HR = 0.98 [0.68-1.40], p = 0.915, and 1.25 [0.60-2.40], p = 0.556, respectively), or EH (adjusted HR = 1.02 [0.79-1.32], p = 0.870, and 1.18 [0.70-1.99], p = 0.537, respectively) were comparable to those of patients with normal LV geometry. Conclusions: Despite the negative prognostic impact of LVCR and CH observed in patients with medically managed AS, these LV remodelling patterns are not associated with excess mortality after AVR. Surgery should therefore be discussed in patients with LVCR or CH and severe AS to avoid the risk of increased mortality observed under conservative management.