Indication For Aortic Valve Replacement Research Articles

Severe aortic stenosis: secular trends of incidence and outcomes.

Severe aortic stenosis (AS) is the guideline-based indication for aortic valve replacement (AVR), which has markedly increased with transcatheter approaches, suggesting possible increasing AS incidence. However, reported secular trends of AS incidence remain contradictory and lack quantitative Doppler echocardiographic ascertainment. All adults residents in Olmsted County (MN, USA) diagnosed over 20 years (1997-2016) with incident severe AS (first diagnosis) based on quantitatively defined measures (aortic valve area ≤ 1 cm2, aortic valve area index ≤ 0.6 cm2/m2, mean gradient ≥ 40 mmHg, peak velocity ≥ 4 m/s, Doppler velocity index ≤ 0.25) were counted to define trends in incidence, presentation, treatment, and outcome. Incident severe AS was diagnosed in 1069 community residents. The incidence rate was 52.5 [49.4-55.8] per 100 000 patient-year, slightly higher in males vs. females and was almost unchanged after age and sex adjustment for the US population 53.8 [50.6-57.0] per 100 000 residents/year. Over 20 years, severe AS incidence remained stable (P = .2) but absolute burden of incident cases markedly increased (P = .0004) due to population growth. Incidence trend differed by sex, stable in men (incidence rate ratio 0.99, P = .7) but declining in women (incidence rate ratio 0.93, P = .02). Over the study, AS clinical characteristics remained remarkably stable and AVR performance grew and was more prompt (from 1.3 [0.1-3.3] years in 1997-2000 to 0.5 [0.2-2.1] years in 2013-16, P = .001) but undertreatment remained prominent (>40%). Early AVR was associated with survival benefit (adjusted hazard ratio 0.55 [0.42-0.71], P < .0001). Despite these improvements, overall mortality (3-month 8% and 3-year 36%), was swift, considerable and unabated (all P ≥ .4) throughout the study. Over 20 years, the population incidence of severe AS remained stable with increased absolute case burden related to population growth. Despite stable severe AS presentation, AVR performance grew notably, but while declining, undertreatment remained substantial and disease lethality did not yet decline. These population-based findings have important implications for improving AS management pathways.

Feasibility of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients With Very Severe Aortic Stenosis.

Background: Very severe aortic stenosis (AS) has a poor prognosis even in asymptomatic patients, and asymptomatic very severe AS is a Class IIa indication for aortic valve replacement, although the safety and effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for very severe AS is not well-established. Methods and Results: This study included 366 patients undergoing TAVI at a single center, with 85 and 281 patients in the very severe AS (peak velocity ≥5 m/s or mean pressure gradient (PG) ≥60 mmHg) and severe AS groups, respectively. Procedural and clinical outcomes at 1-year follow-up were compared between groups. The calcium scores were significantly higher in the very severe AS group (2,864.5 vs. 1,405.8 arbitrary units [AU] (P<0.001). Although the patient-prosthesis mismatch rate was higher in the very severe AS group (38.3% vs. 25.7%; P=0.029), there was no significant difference in the early safety and clinical efficacy between the groups (16.5% vs. 17.1% and 12.0% vs. 18.9%, respectively). Similarly, there was no significant difference in all-cause mortality at 1 year (4.8% vs. 9.8%). Conclusions: Despite a higher incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch in those with very severe AS, the procedural and clinical outcomes were comparable to those in patients with severe AS. TAVI may be a reasonable treatment option for very severe AS.

Aortic Stenosis Phenotypes and Precision Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

Patients with a clinical indication for aortic valve replacement can either undergo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI). There are many different factors that go into determining which type of replacement to undergo, including age, life expectancy, comorbidities, frailty, and patient preference. While both options offer significant benefits to patients in terms of clinical outcomes and quality of life, there is growing interest in expanding the indications for TAVI due to its minimally invasive approach. However, it is worth noting that there are several discrepancies in TAVI outcomes in regards to various endpoints, including death, stroke, and major cardiovascular events. It is unclear why these discrepancies exist, but potential explanations include the diversity of etiologies for aortic stenosis, complex patient comorbidities, and ongoing advancements in both medical therapies and devices. Of these possibilities, we propose that phenotypic variation of aortic stenosis has the most significant impact on post-TAVI clinical outcomes. Such variability in phenotypes is often due to a complex interplay between underlying comorbidities and environmental and inherent patient risk factors. However, there is growing evidence to suggest that patient genetics may also play a role in aortic stenosis pathology. As such, we propose that the selection and management of TAVI patients should emphasize a precision medicine approach.

A primer for the student joining the adult cardiac surgery service tomorrow: Primer 1 of 7

A primer for the student joining the adult cardiac surgery service tomorrow: Primer 1 of 7

Predictors of Mid-Term AVNeo Insufficiency.

Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most common valvular heart disease and the most common indication for aortic valve replacement in adults. Aortic valve neocuspidization (AVNeo) with fixed autologous pericardium, also known as the Ozaki procedure, is a possible alternative treatment of AS. Autopericardial valves save the dynamics and physiological anatomy of the aortic root, however, the service life of autopericardial leaflets is limited. There is no data about factors that may influence the development of AVNeo insufficiency. Here, we assessed the effect of autopericardial leaflet symmetry on the development of aortic insufficiency after Ozaki procedure. This study included 381 patients with AS who underwent Ozaki procedure. Patients were divided into group 1 (171 patients with symmetric aortic root) and group 2 (210 patients with asymmetric aortic root). The maximum observation period was up to 65 months. Sixteen cases of aortic insufficiency were detected in group 1, and 33 cases were detected in group 2. Based on the results of Cox regression, the predictors of aortic insufficiency in the late postoperative period are age and asymmetry of neocusps. According to results of Kaplan-Meier analysis, insufficiency of AVNeo in the maximum follow-up period after surgical correction of AS for group 1 patients was significantly lower than for group 2 patients (P=0.006). Asymmetric neocusps increase the risk of aortic insufficiency in the mid-term period after Ozaki procedure. And the older the patients at the time of surgery, the less likely they develop AVNeo insufficiency.

Outcomes in patients with moderate and asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis followed up in heart valve clinics

BackgroundHeart valve clinics (HVC) have been introduced to manage patients with valvular heart disease within a multidisciplinary team.ObjectiveTo determine the outcome benefit of HVC approach compared with standard of care...

Do all patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis need treatment?

Introduction Although guidelines recommend a watchful waiting strategy for patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis, there have been considerable advancements in surgical and anaesthetic techniques along with the success of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (AVR) as a viable alternative to surgical AVR. Inevitably, these developments have raised questions as to whether or not there is still merit in waiting for symptoms to ensue before treatment may offered to these patients. Area covered The principal purpose of this paper is to review the data supporting earlier intervention in patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis, and to project the implications these and other ongoing trials will have on indications for AVR in asymptomatic patients in the future. Expert opinion The threshold for intervention in certain subgroups of asymptomatic patients with severe AS has already been lowered. The next frontier will inevitably be determining whether all patients with severe AS should undergo AVR irrespective of their symptomatic status.

Predictors of heart failure and all-cause mortality in asymptomatic patients with moderate and severe aortic regurgitation.

Class I indications for aortic valve replacement (AVR) for severe chronic aortic regurgitation (AR) include AR attributable symptoms or left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction <50%. As noninvasive estimates of elevated LV filling pressures (LVFP's) have been noted to predict heart failure (HF) readmission and all-cause mortality (ACM) in HF patients, we hypothesize that elevated LVFP's may also be independent predictors of HF and ACM in chronic AR. We developed a single center patient database of moderate or greater AR diagnoses between 2003 and 2008 and followed each patient through January 2013. We included patients with >30 days follow-up with interpretable Doppler-echocardiograms. We recorded demographic variables, EuroScore II, incident HF and ACM, and Doppler-echo variables of LV size, systolic and diastolic function. Patients with severe AR (105 patients) and moderate AR (201 patients) had similar EuroScore II values and similar incident HF and ACM. For the 180 patients who developed HF, effective arterial elastance (aHR=1.70 (1.01-2.83), p=.041), LV end-diastolic dimension (aHR=1.83, (1.11-3.03), p=.0176), E/e' (aHR=3.04, (1.83-5.05), p<.0001), eccentric hypertrophy (EH) (aHR=2.39, (1.62-5.12), p=.0004), and tricuspid regurgitation (TR) velocity (aHR=5.75, (3.70-10.36), p<.0001) were independent predictors. For the 118 patients with ACM, EH (aHR=1.73, (1.02-3.28), p=.0414), systolic blood pressure (aHR=.58, (.33-.95), p=.0301), left atrial volume index (aHR=1.82, (1.06-3.06), p=.0293), E/e' (aHR=1.83, (1.07-3.08), p=.0280), and TR velocity (aHR=4.14, (2.22-6.49), p<.0001) were independent predictors. Elevated TR velocity and EH were strong markers of HF and ACM in patients with asymptomatic severe AR and in moderate AR.

Patient- and Process-Related Contributors to the Underuse of Aortic Valve Replacement and Subsequent Mortality in Ambulatory Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis.

BackgroundMany patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and an indication for aortic valve replacement (AVR) do not undergo treatment. The reasons for this have not been well studied in the transcatheter AVR era. We sought to determine how patient‐ and process‐specific factors affected AVR use in patients with severe AS.Methods and ResultsWe identified ambulatory patients from 2016 to 2018 demonstrating severe AS, defined by aortic valve area ≤1.0 cm2. Propensity scoring analysis with inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to evaluate associations between predictors and the odds of undergoing AVR at 365 days and subsequent mortality at 730 days. Of 324 patients with an indication for AVR (79.3±9.7 years, 57.4% men), 140 patients (43.2%) did not undergo AVR. The odds of AVR were reduced in patients aged >90 years (odds ratio [OR], 0.24 [95% CI, 0.08–0.69]; P=0.01), greater comorbid conditions (OR, 0.88 per 1‐point increase in Combined Comorbidity Index [95% CI, 0.79–0.97]; P=0.01), low‐flow, low‐gradient AS with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (OR, 0.11 [95% CI, 0.06–0.21]), and low‐gradient AS with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (OR, 0.18 [95% CI, 0.08–0.40]) and were increased if the transthoracic echocardiogram ordering provider was a cardiologist (OR, 2.46 [95% CI, 1.38–4.38]). Patients who underwent AVR gained an average of 85.8 days of life (95% CI, 40.9–130.6) at 730 days.ConclusionsThe proportion of ambulatory patients with severe AS and an indication for AVR who do not receive AVR remains significant. Efforts are needed to maximize the recognition of severe AS, especially low‐gradient subtypes, and to encourage patient referral to multidisciplinary heart valve teams.

Echocardiographic predictors of left ventricular reverse remodeling after aortic valve replacement in patients with paradoxical aortic stenosis

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Introduction Paradoxical aortic stenosis (AS) is low-flow (SVi ≤ 35ml/m2) , low- gradient (Mean PG ≤ 40mmHg) severe aortic stenosis (AVA &amp;lt; 1cm2) in patients with preserved ejection fraction (EF ≥ 50%) usually associated with female gender, advanced age, small body size and history of hypertension. Left ventricular (LV) reverse remodeling presents with LV hypertrophy reversal following aortic valve replacement (AVR) and is associated with better long term prognosis. Purpose The purpose of our study was to asses echocardiographic predictors of better outcome in patients with paradoxical severe AS following AVR. Methods Detailed transthoracic echocardiographic (TTE) evaluation with left ventricular strain analysis was performed using 2D Philips Epique 7 in patients with severe aortic stenosis with AVR indication before and 4 months after the intervention. Results Among 75 patients with severe AS and indication for AVR, 20 (31, 7%) were paradoxical AS with low- flow, low –gradient and preserved ejection fraction. Sixty percent were female and eighty percent had hypertension where all echocardiographic parameters improved following AVR including improvement of LV global longitudinal strain (LS) as well as reduction of left ventricular mass indicating left ventricular reverse remodeling (Figure 1). The patients with paradoxical AS compared to the other forms of severe AS had the lowest values for MAPSE and s’TDI before and after AVR. Independent predictors of LV reverse remodeling before AVR were end systolic LV volume (ESV) , AVA/BSA and the number of segments with LS &amp;lt; 13%. Conclusion Paradoxical severe AS is associated with worse post AVR prognosis compared to the high gradient severe AS. Echocardiographic predictors of LV reverse remodeling in patients with paradoxical severe AS following AVR are LV ESV, AVA/BSA and number of segments with LS &amp;lt; 13%. Timely diagnosis and AVR referral of patients with paradoxical severe AS is of major importance in the management of aortic valvular disease. Abstract Figure. Descriptive of 20pts with paradoxical AS Abstract Figure. Predictors of LV reverse remodeling

Changing Trends of Aortic Valve Replacement Procedures in Australia

Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is one of the most common surgeries performed in cardiac surgery operating rooms. Estimated prevalence of aortic stenosis (AS), a common indication for aortic valve replacement, is 1.48 % among those aged ≥ 55 years, suggesting 97,000 Australians living with severe AS in 2019. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are 2 common approaches used for aortic valve replacement. Although TAVR is a relatively newer technique as compared to SAVR, it is slowly becoming new standard of care.

Abstract 10788: Temporal Trends in the Utilization of Aortic Valve Replacement for Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis from 2000-2017: Insights from a Multi-Centered Study

Introduction: Despite the rapid growth of aortic valve replacement (AVR) for aortic stenosis (AS), studies have suggested that symptomatic severe AS remains undertreated. Hypothesis: The growth in patients with an indication for AVR has outpaced the number of AVRs performed. Methods: We identified patients with severe AS (aortic valve area &lt;1cm 2 ) on transthoracic echocardiograms from 2000-2017 at two large academic medical centers. Natural language processing (NLP) models were developed and validated to identify symptoms consistent with severe AS, and patients were classified based on ACC/AHA clinical guideline indications for AVR. Patients were divided into groups based on mean aortic valve gradient (mAVG≥ 40 or &lt;40mmHg) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF≥50% or &lt;50%). Utilization of AVR (transcatheter aortic valve implantation [TAVI] or surgical aortic valve replacement [SAVR]) in patients with a clinical indication was examined over time, and clinical predictors of AVR were identified via multivariate logistic regression. Results: A total of 10,795 AS patients were included in this analysis, of whom 6,150 (57%) had an indication or potential indication for AVR and 2,976 (48%) received AVR. The frequency of AVR varied by AS subtype (HG-NEF: 69%, HG-LEF: 53%, LG-NEF: 32%, LG-LEF: 38%, p&lt;0.001). The adoption of TAVI contributed to the growth in AVR volume over time, however there has been a parallel rise in the number of patients with an indication for AVR (Figure). In patients with a class I indication for AVR, younger age, coronary artery disease, smoking history, higher hematocrit, outpatient index TTE, and LVEF≥0.5 were independently associated with an increased likelihood of receiving an AVR. Conclusions: Over an 18-year study period, the proportion of patients with an indication for AVR who do not receive AVR has remained significant despite the rapid growth of AVR volumes.

Association of Mortality With Aortic Stenosis Severity in Outpatients

Modern data regarding incidence and modes of death of patients with aortic stenosis (AS) are restricted to tertiary centers or studies of aortic valve replacement (AVR). To provide new insights into the natural history of outpatients with native AS based on a large regionwide population study with inclusion by all cardiologists regardless of their mode of practice. Between May 2016 and December 2017, consecutive outpatients with mild (peak aortic velocity, 2.5-2.9 m/s), moderate (peak aortic velocity, 3-3.9 m/s), and severe (peak aortic velocity, ≥4 m/s) native AS graded by echocardiography were included by 117 cardiologists from the Nord-Pas-de-Calais region in France. Analysis took place between August and November 2020. Natural history, need for AVR, and survival of patients with AS were followed up. Indications for AVR were based on current guideline recommendations. Among 2703 patients (mean [SD] age, 76.0 [10.8] years; 1260 [46.6%] women), 233 (8.6%) were recruited in a university public hospital, 757 (28%) in nonuniversity public hospitals, and 1713 (63.4%) by cardiologists working in private practice. A total of 1154 patients (42.7%) had mild, 1122 (41.5%) had moderate, and 427 (15.8%) had severe AS. During a median (interquartile range) of 2.1 (1.4-2.7) years, 634 patients underwent AVR and 448 died prior to AVR. Most deaths were cardiovascular (200 [44.7%]), mainly associated with congestive heart failure (101 [22.6%]) or sudden death (60 [13.4%]). Deaths were noncardiovascular in 186 patients (41.5%) and from unknown causes in 62 patients (13.8%). Compared with patients with mild AS, there was increased cardiovascular mortality in those with moderate (hazard ratio, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.07-2.02]) and severe (hazard ratio, 3.66 [95% CI, 2.52-5.31]) AS. The differences remained significant when adjusted for baseline characteristics or in time-dependent analyses considering AS progression. In asymptomatic patients, moderate and mild AS were associated with similar cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.44-2.21]). While patients in this study with moderate AS had a slightly higher risk of cardiovascular death than patients with mild AS, this risk was much lower than that observed in patients with severe AS. Moreover, in asymptomatic patients, moderate and mild AS were associated with similar cardiovascular mortality.

Management of patients with severe aortic stenosis in the TAVI-era: how recent recommendations are translated into clinical practice

ObjectiveApproximately 3.4% of adults aged >75 years suffer from aortic stenosis (AS). Guideline indications for aortic valve replacement (AVR) distinguish between patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic severe AS. The present...

Early Hemodynamics after Aortic Valve Replacement.

Background and objectives: The aims of this study were to investigate changes in the hemodynamics associated with different types of aortic prostheses and to evaluate patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) at rest and after exercise. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 150 patients who presented with indications for aortic valve replacement (AVR) with/without concomitant surgery from March 2019 to January 2020. The study population included 90 (60%) men and 60 (40%) women (mean age, 67.33 ± 10.22 years; range, 37–88 years). Echocardiography data such as peak and mean transprosthetic pressure gradients (Gmax, Gmean), velocity (V), effective orifice area (EOA), and indexed EOA (iEOA) were derived at rest and after exercise at baseline and before discharge. The study patients performed the six-minute walk test (6MWT) on the 5th–7th postoperative day. Results: Stented tissue valves showed excellent performance at rest and after exercise in comparison with mechanical valves, which showed favorable hemodynamics at rest only. At the time of discharge, moderate PPM was observed in 7/74 patients (9.5%) at rest and 5/98 (3.3%) patients after exercise. None of the patients showed severe PPM. EOA and iEOA were not significantly different between the groups. However, the stented group showed more pronounced changes in EOA and iEOA after exercise, whereas the changes in the mechanical valve group did not reach significance. Conclusions: In the early postoperative period, mechanical valves and stented valves showed favorable resting hemodynamics. The PPM rate measured after exercise was lower than that at rest.

Abstract 17049: Outcomes of Bioprosthetic and Mechanical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Congenital Heart Disease

Introduction: Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is required in patients with congenital heart disease who are not candidates for Ross procedure or valve repair. The long-term outcomes of prosthetic AVR in patients with congenital heart disease are unknown. Methods: A single-institution, retrospective review of all patients treated with mechanical (M) and bioprosthetic (BP) AVR between 12/1985 to 2/2020 was undertaken. Results: One-hundred and ninety-three patients underwent BP (n=134) or M (n=59) AVR. Indications for AVR were insufficiency (91/193), stenosis (61/194), mixed (38/193), aneurysm (2/193), and unknown (1/193). Patients receiving M valves were more likely to be younger (18.5 years versus 29.0 years, p &lt; 0.01) and less likely to require subsequent valve reintervention (p &lt; 0.01). Average time to first reintervention was 76 and 71 months in the BP and M groups respectively (p = 0.785). Survival between the M and BP groups was similar (p = 0.120). Twenty-four patients who received a M valve and thirteen patients who received a BP valve died during the study period. Causes of death were cardiac (16/37), stroke (3/37), non-cardiac (4/37), and unknown (14/37). Conclusions: Long-term freedom from death or valve reintervention is poor in congenital heart disease patients requiring AVR. Survival is similar between patients treated with M and BP valves, however, BP valves more frequently required reintervention during the study period. Both BP and M valves are associated with significant long-term mortality. These results highlight the need for the development of robust aortic valve repair techniques so that AVR can be avoided.

P1274 Early surgery versus watchful waiting in patients with moderate aortic stenosis and left ventricular systolic dysfunction

Abstract Background Aortic stenosis (AS) induces significant pressure overload to the left ventricle (LV) and its burden may increase if there is concomitant LV systolic dysfunction. Severe AS with LV systolic dysfunction is a class I indication for aortic valve replacement (AVR) irrespective of symptoms, however, this recommendation is not well established in those with moderate AS and LV systolic dysfunction. In this study, we sought to investigate the clinical impact of surgical AVR among patients with moderate AS and LV systolic dysfunction. Methods From 2001 to 2017, we retrospectively but consecutively identified patients with moderate AS and LV systolic dysfunction from a single tertiary hospital. Moderate AS was defined as aortic valve area between 1.0 and 1.5cm2 and LV systolic dysfunction as LV ejection fraction less than 50%. The primary outcome was all-cause death and we additionally analyzed cardiac death as a secondary endpoint. The outcomes were compared between those who underwent early surgical AVR at the stage of moderate AS versus those who were followed without AVR at the outpatient clinic. Results Among a total of 257 patients with moderate AS and concomitant LV systolic dysfunction (70.0 ± 11.3 years, 63.4% of male), 34 patients received early AVR. Patients in the AVR group was younger than the observation group (64.2 ± 8.1 vs. 70.9 ± 11.5, respectively), and had a lower prevalence of hypertension and chronic kidney disease. During a mean of 3-year follow up, 112 patients (47.5%) died and the overall death rate was 15.367 per 100 person-year (PY). The AVR group showed a significantly lower rate of all-cause death than the observation group (5.241PY vs. 18.160PY, p-value = 0.002). After multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression adjusting for age, sex, comorbidities and laboratory data, early AVR at the stage of moderate AS significantly reduced the risk of all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR] 0.340, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.117 - 0.985, p-value = 0.047). However, there was no risk reduction of cardiac death (HR 0.578 95% CI 0.150 - 2.231, p-value = 0.426). Conclusions In patients with moderate AS and LV systolic dysfunction, AVR reduces the risk of all-cause death. A prospective design study is warranted to confirm our findings in the near future. Abstract P1274 Figure. Kaplan-Meier curves for deaths

Early Surgery versus Watchful Waiting in Patients with Moderate Aortic Stenosis and Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction.

Background and ObjectivesSevere aortic stenosis (AS) with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) is a class I indication for aortic valve replacement (AVR) but this recommendation is not well established in those at the stage of moderate AS. We investigate the clinical impact of AVR among patients with moderate AS and LVSD.MethodsFrom 2001 to 2017, we consecutively identified patients with moderate AS and LVSD, defined as aortic valve area 1.0–1.5 cm2 and left ventricular ejection fraction <50%. The primary outcome was all-cause death. The outcomes were compared between those who underwent early surgical AVR (within 2 years of index echocardiography) at the stage of moderate AS versus those who were followed medically without AVR at the outpatient clinic.ResultsAmong 255 patients (70.1±11.3 years, male 62%), 37 patients received early AVR. The early AVR group was younger than the medical observation group (63.1±7.9 vs. 71.3±11.4) with a lower prevalence of hypertension and chronic kidney disease. During a median 1.8-year follow up, 121 patients (47.5%) died, and the early AVR group showed a significantly lower all-cause death rate than the medical observation group (5.03PY vs. 18.80PY, p<0.001). After multivariable Cox-proportional hazard regression adjusting for age, sex, comorbidities, and laboratory data, early AVR at the stage of moderate AS significantly reduced the risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% confidence interval 0.20–0.91; p=0.028).ConclusionsIn patients with moderate AS and LVSD, AVR reduces the risk of all-cause death. A prospective randomized trial is warranted to confirm our findings.

The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system as a potential target for therapy in patients with calcific aortic stenosis: a literature review

Calcific aortic valve stenosis (CAVS) is a serious socio-economic problem in developed countries because this disease is the most common indication for aortic valve replacement. Currently, there are no methods for non-invasive treatment of CAVS. Nevertheless, it is assumed that effective drug therapy for CAVS can be developed on the basis of modulators of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS), which is involved in the pathogenesis of this disease. The purpose of this paper is to compile and analyze current information on the role of RAAS in the CAVS pathophysiology. Recent data on the effectiveness of RAAS inhibition are reviewed.

Heartbeat: guidelines versus reality for patients with severe aortic stenosis

The increasing prevalence of aortic stenosis (AS) in our ageing population and clinical trials demonstrating the benefits of transcatheter valve implantation for severe symptomatic AS have focused attention on this...