Asymptomatic versus Symptomatic Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis

Evaluation of aortic stenosis: From Bernoulli and Doppler to Navier-Stokes

Uni-dimensional Doppler echocardiography data provide the mainstay of quantative assessment of aortic stenosis, with the transvalvular pressure drop a key indicator of haemodynamic burden. Sophisticated methods of obtaining velocity data, combined with improved computational analysis, are facilitating increasingly robust and reproducible measurement. Imaging modalities which permit acquisition of three-dimensional blood velocity vector fields enable angle-independent valve interrogation and calculation of enhanced measures of the transvalvular pressure drop. This manuscript clarifies the fundamental principles of physics that underpin the evaluation of aortic stenosis and explores modern techniques that may provide more accurate means to grade aortic stenosis and inform appropriate management.

Impact of Managing Provider Type on Severe Aortic Stenosis Management and Mortality

Background Many patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis do not undergo aortic valve replacement (AVR) despite clinical guidelines. This study analyzed the association of managing provider type with cardiac specialist follow-up, AVR, and mortality for patients with newly diagnosed severe aortic stenosis (sAS). Methods and Results We identified adults with newly diagnosed sAS per echocardiography performed between January 2017 and March 2019 using Optum electronic health record data. We then selected from those meeting all eligibility criteria patients managed by a primary care provider (n=1707 [25%]) or cardiac specialist (n=5039 [75%]). We evaluated the association of managing provider type with cardiac specialist follow-up, AVR, and mortality, as well as the independent association of cardiac specialist follow-up and AVR with mortality, within 1 year of echocardiography detecting sAS. A subgroup analysis was limited to patients with symptomatic sAS. Patient characteristics and comorbidities at baseline were used for covariate-adjusted cause-specific and multivariable Cox proportional hazard models assessing group differences in outcomes by managing provider type. An adjusted Cox proportional hazard model with additional time-dependent covariates for follow-up and AVR was used to assess these practices' association with mortality. Within 1 year of echocardiography detecting sAS, data revealed that primary care provider management was associated with lower rates of cardiac specialist follow-up (hazard ratio [HR], 0.47 [95% CI, 0.43-0.50], P<0.0001) and AVR (HR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.53-0.64], P<0.0001) and with higher 1-year mortality (HR, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.26-1.66], P<0.0001). Cardiac specialist follow-up and AVR were independently associated with lower mortality (follow-up: HR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.48-0.63], P<0.0001; AVR: HR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.60-0.83], P<0.0001). Results were similar for patients with symptomatic sAS. All analyses were adjusted for baseline patient characteristics and comorbidities. Conclusions For patients newly diagnosed with sAS, we observed differences in rates of cardiac specialist follow-up and AVR and risk of mortality between primary care provider- versus cardiologist-managed patients with sAS. In addition, a lower likelihood of receiving follow-up and AVR was independently associated with higher mortality.

Asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis, bicuspid aortic valves and moderate aortic stenosis in heart failure: New indications for transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Aortic stenosis (AS) remains one of the most common valvular heart diseases, with enormous impact on patient survival. Over the past years, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become a reality worldwide, offering a less invasive method to treat AS. Apart from the classical indications for aortic valve disease, recent studies tried to address unanswered questions for TAVI - asymptomatic severe AS, bicuspid aortic valves and moderate AS in patients with heart failure. This review discusses the rationale of those possible indications, pitfalls and current evidence in the medical literature.

Impact of New York Heart Association functional class on outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation

BACKGROUND

In the current guidelines, indications for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are expanded to include several subgroups of asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS), and there is a paucity of data on the prognostic impact of New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class in patients with severe AS undergoing TAVI.

METHODS

Among 2588 patients enrolled in the OCEAN-TAVI registry, patients were divided into 4 groups according to baseline NYHA class (class I in 95 patients, class II in 1172 patients, class III in 1126 patients, and class IV in 195 patients).

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 729 days. The cumulative 2-year incidence of all-cause death was significantly higher in patients with NYHA class IV and III than in those with NYHA class II and I. (30.0%, 21.3%, 13.4%, and 11.2%, respectively, P < 0.001). After adjusting confounders, NYHA class IV and III, but not NYHA class II were independently associated with higher mortality compared with NYHA class I (reference) (adjusted HR: 3.43, 95%CI: 1.83-7.15, P < 0.001; adjusted HR: 2.07, 95%CI: 1.15-4.19, P = 0.013; and adjusted HR: 1.50, 95%CI: 0.83-3.04, P = 0.19, respectively). With increasing NYHA class, there was an incremental increase of heart failure hospitalization in the effect size relative to the reference (NYHA class I).

CONCLUSIONS

The long-term outcomes of patients with NYHA class I were better than those with NYHA class IV or III in some selected patients undergoing TAVI.

Exercise Training for Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis in a Convalescent Rehabilitation Ward - A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background: Exercise loading is contraindicated for patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS); however, everyday activities mandate the inclusion of a light load. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of exercise training for patients with severe AS who were admitted to a rehabilitation ward because of physical disability. Methods and Results: This historical cohort study was conducted at a single rehabilitation center in Japan. Patients admitted for rehabilitation of physical disability and those who met the definition of severe AS were analyzed. An exercise training program was implemented for patients with disability and severe AS. Cardiovascular symptoms during hospitalization were evaluated. Improvements in the performance of activities of daily living were assessed using the Functional Independence Measure (FIM). Eighteen patients undertook an exercise training program. The median patient age was 87 years (range 76-95 years). Of these patients, 3 died and another 3 were transferred to another hospital due to causes other than the exercise training program. None of the other patients experienced cardiovascular symptoms, and the FIM scores of 12 patients were significantly improved (median [range] scores at admission and discharge of 63 [32-88] and 87 [51-104], respectively; P<0.001). Conclusions: An exercise training program could be applied to patients with severe AS who were admitted for convalescent rehabilitation, because it can improve FIM scores.

Contemporary issues in severe aortic stenosis: review of current and future strategies from the Contemporary Outcomes after Surgery and Medical Treatment in Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis registry

Contemporary Outcomes after Surgery and Medical Treatment in Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis (CURRENT AS) registry was a large Japanese multicentre retrospective registry of consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) before introduction of transcatheter aortic valve implantation. We sought to overview the data from the CURRENT AS registry to discuss the three major contemporary issues related to clinical practice in patients with severe AS: (1) under-referral/underuse of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in symptomatic patients with severe AS, (2) management of asymptomatic patients with severe AS and (3) management of patients with low-gradient severe aortic stenosis (LG-AS). First, despite the dismal prognosis of symptomatic patients with severe AS, SAVR, including those performed during follow-up, was reported to be underused. In the CURRENT AS registry, overall 53% of symptomatic patients underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) during follow-up. Second, we reported that compared with conservative strategy, initial AVR strategy was associated with lower risk of all-cause death and heart failure hospitalisation in asymptomatic patients with severe AS. Although current recommendations for AVR are mainly dependent on the patient symptoms, some patients may not complain of any symptom because of their sedentary lifestyle. We also reported several important objective factors associated with worse clinical outcomes in asymptomatic patients with severe AS for risk stratification. Finally, initial AVR strategy was associated with better long-term clinical outcomes than conservative strategy in both patients with high-gradient AS and patients with LG-AS. The favourable effect of initial AVR strategy was also seen in patients with LG-AS with left ventricular ejection fraction of ≥50%.