Mortality and worsening of prognostic profile during waiting time for valve replacement in aortic stenosis

ECG left ventricular hypertrophy in aortic stenosis: Relationship with cardiac structure, invasive hemodynamics, and long-term mortality

BACKGROUND

In aortic stenosis (AS), left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) is the response to pressure overload and represents the substrate for a maladaptive cascade, the so-called AS-related cardiac damage. We hypothesized that in AS patients electrocardiogram (ECG) LVH not only predicts echocardiography LVH but also other noninvasive and invasive markers of cardiac damage and prognosis after aortic valve replacement (AVR).

METHODS

In 279 patients with severe AS undergoing ECG, echocardiography, and cardiac catheterization before AVR, the Sokolow-Lyon index, the Cornell product, the Romhilt-Estes score, and the Peguero-Lo Presti score were assessed.

RESULTS

The mean left ventricular mass index was 109 ± 34 g/m2 , and 131 (47%) patients had echocardiography LVH. The areas under the receiver operator characteristics curve (AUC) for the Sokolow-Lyon index, the Cornell product, the Romhilt-Estes score, and the Peguero-Lo Presti score for the prediction of echocardiography LVH were 0.59, 0.70, 0.63, and 0.65. The Peguero-Lo Presti score had the numerically greatest AUC for the prediction of left ventricular end-diastolic pressure >15 mmHg, mean pulmonary artery wedge pressure >15 mmHg, pulmonary vascular resistance >3 Wood units, mean right atrial pressure >14 mmHg, and stroke volume index <31 mL/m2 . After a median follow-up of 1365 (interquartile range: 931-1851) days after AVR only the Peguero-Lo Presti score was significantly associated with all-cause mortality [hazard ratio: 1.24 (95% confidence interval: 1.01-1.54); per 1 mV increase; p = .045].

CONCLUSIONS

Among severe AS patients, the Peguero-Lo Presti score is associated with abnormalities in cardiac structure including LVH, invasive measures of cardiac damage, and long-term mortality after AVR.

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

BACKGROUND

Heart valve clinics (HVC) have been introduced to manage patients with valvular heart disease within a multidisciplinary team.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the outcome benefit of HVC approach compared with standard of care (SOC) for patients with moderate and asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis (mAS and asAS).

METHODS

Single-centre, observational registry of patients with mAS and asAS with at least one cardiac ambulatory consultation at our Cardiovascular Centre. Based on the outpatient strategy, patients were divided into HVC group, if receiving at least one visit at HVC, and SOC group, if followed by routine cardiac consultations.

RESULTS

2129 patients with mAS and asAS were divided into those followed in HVC (n=251) versus SOC group (n=1878). The mean age was 76.5±12.4 years; 919 (43.2%) had asAS. During a follow-up of 4.8±1.8 years, 822 patients (38.6%) died, 307 (14.4%) were hospitalised for heart failure and 596 (28%) underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR). After propensity score matching, the number of consultations per year, exercise stress tests, brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) determinations and CTs were higher in the HVC cohort (p<0.05 for all). A shorter time between indication of AVR and less advanced New York Heart Association class was reported in the HVC cohort (p<0.001 and p=0.032). Compared with SOC, the HVC approach was associated with reduced all-cause mortality (HR=0.63, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.98, p=0.038) and cardiovascular death (p=0.030). At multivariable analysis, the HVC remained an independent predictor of all-cause mortality (HR=0.54, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.85, p=0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with mAS and asAS, the HVC approach was associated with more efficient management and outcome benefit compared with SOC.

Severe aortic stenosis management in heart valve centres compared with primary/secondary care centres

OBJECTIVE

Current guidelines recommend use of heart valve centres (HVCs) to deliver optimal quality of care for patients with valve disease but there is no evidence to support this. The hypothesis of this study is that patient care with severe aortic stenosis (AS) will differ in HVCs compared with satellite centres. We aimed to compare the treatment of patients with AS at HVCs (tertiary care hospitals with full access to AS interventions) to satellites (hospitals without such access).

METHODS

IMPULSE enhanced is a European, observational, prospective registry enrolling consecutive patients with newly diagnosed severe AS at four HVCs and 10 satellites. Clinical characteristics, interventions performed and outcomes up to 1 year by site-type were examined.

RESULTS

Among 790 patients, 594 were recruited in HVCs and 196 in satellites. At baseline, patients in HVCs had more severe valve disease (higher peak aortic velocity (4.3 vs 4.1 m/s; p=0.008)) and greater comorbidity (coronary artery disease (CAD) (44% vs 27%; p<0.001) prior myocardial infarction (MI) (11% vs 5.1%; p=0.011) and chronic pulmonary disease (17% vs 8.9%; p=0.007)) than those presenting in satellites. An aortic valve replacement was performed more often by month 3 in HVCs than satellites in the overall population (52.6% of vs 31.3%; p<0.001) and in symptomatic patients (66.7% vs 43.2%, p<0.001). One-year survival rate was higher for patients in HVCs than satellites (HR2.19; 95% CI 1.28 to 3.73 total population and 2.89 (95%CI 1.64 to 5.11) for symptomatic patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data support the implementation of referral pathways that direct patients to HVCs performing both surgery and transcatheter interventions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03112629.

Exercise Testing in Aortic Stenosis: Safety, Tolerability, Clinical Benefits and Prognostic Value

Background: Routine exercise testing in asymptomatic patients with valvular heart disease (VHD) better classifies the hemodynamic severity of valve stenosis or regurgitation, and describes the symptomatic status and functional capacity of the patient. This is crucial for planned surveillance and optimal timing of surgery, particularly for aortic stenosis (AS), because once symptoms occur, there is a sharp increase in the risk of sudden death unless valve intervention is performed. Purpose: To conduct a focused clinical review on the benefits of exercise testing in patients with AS. Methods: The electronic database PubMed was systematically searched for relevant retrospective and prospective cohort studies reporting on the safety, feasibility and tolerability of exercise testing in VHD, with a special focus on AS. Results and conclusions: In patients with significant AS, exercise testing is safe, feasible and reveals symptoms in a significant proportion of patients. In addition, serial testing has incremental prognostic value over a baseline test alone. Exercise testing in patients with AS is underused and should be performed routinely to refine the hemodynamic severity of AS.

Timing of aortic valve replacement in high-gradient severe aortic stenosis: impact of left ventricular ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Patients with high-gradient (HG) severe aortic stenosis (AS) and left ventricular (LV) dysfunction are at high risk of death. The optimal timing for aortic valve replacement (AVR) is not defined by guidelines. The objective was to define the optimal timing to perform isolated AVR in patients with HG-AS and severe LV dysfunction.

METHODS

We retrospectively included 233 consecutive patients admitted for severe HG-AS (aortic valve area <1cm² and mean gradient ≥40mmHg). Severe LV dysfunction was defined by LV ejection fraction ≤35% (LVEF). All-cause mortality while waiting for AVR and after the intervention (30 days) was compared in patients with (n = 28) and without (n = 205) LVEF ≤35%.

RESULTS

Patients with HG-AS and severe LV dysfunction had a higher risk profile than those with LVEF >35%. AVR was performed in 93% (218/233) of patients, 41% by surgery (SAVR) and 53% by transcatheter (TAVR). TAVR was the preferred method to treat HG-AS patients with LVEF ≤35%. All-cause mortality while waiting for AVR was higher in patients with severe LV dysfunction (22% vs. 2.0%, p < 0.001) and occurred within a shorter time (12 [8-26] days vs. 63 [58-152] days, p = 0.010) compared to those with LVEF >35%. All death in HG-AS patients with a severe LV dysfunction occurred within the first month. Postoperative mortality was low (1.3%), irrespective of LVEF.

CONCLUSIONS

AVR should be performed promptly after Heart Team decision in patients with HG severe AS and LVEF ≤35% because of a very high and premature risk of death while waiting for intervention.

The electrocardiogram: Still a useful marker for LV fibrosis in aortic stenosis

Left ventricular (LV) strain on the electrocardiogram (ECG) (down-sloping, convex ST-segment depression with asymmetric T-wave inversion in leads V5 and V6) reflects fibrosis as a result of subendocardial ischemia. It is associated with a significantly increased risk of cardiovascular events independent of the presence of LV hypertrophy on the echocardiogram or cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) scan. Ongoing studies of early aortic valve replacement in asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis are using ECG changes as a marker of possible fibrosis shown by midwall late gadolinium enhancement on CMR. However, until these studies report, it is still reasonable to respond to LV strain on the ECG by tightening control of systemic hypertension and consider intervention in cases where indications are otherwise in borderline.

Outpatient management of heart valve disease following the COVID-19 pandemic: implications for present and future care

The established processes for ensuring safe outpatient surveillance of patients with known heart valve disease (HVD), echocardiography for patients referred with new murmurs and timely delivery of surgical or transcatheter treatment for patients with severe disease have all been significantly impacted by the novel coronavirus pandemic. This has created a large backlog of work and upstaging of disease with consequent increases in risk and cost of treatment and potential for worse long-term outcomes. As countries emerge from lockdown but with COVID-19 endemic in society, precautions remain that restrict 'normal' practice. In this article, we propose a methodology for restructuring services for patients with HVD and provide recommendations pertaining to frequency of follow-up and use of echocardiography at present. It will be almost impossible to practice exactly as we did prior to the pandemic; thus, it is essential to prioritise patients with the greatest clinical need, such as those with symptomatic severe HVD. Local procedural waiting times will need to be considered, in addition to usual clinical characteristics in determining whether patients requiring intervention would be better suited having surgical or transcatheter treatment. We present guidance on the identification of stable patients with HVD that could have follow-up deferred safely and suggest certain patients that could be discharged from follow-up if waiting lists are triaged with appropriate clinical input. Finally, we propose that novel models of working enforced by the pandemic-such as increased use of virtual clinics-should be further developed and evaluated.

Sex differences in aortic stenosis: from pathophysiology to treatment

Introduction: In aortic stenosis (AS), there are clear sex differences in clinical presentation, left ventricular (LV) response to pressure overload, and pathophysiology of valvular calcification. These differences may affect outcome following valve intervention.Area covered: This review aims to discuss sex differences in clinical presentation, pathophysiology of aortic valve calcification, LV remodeling in view of historic and recent echocardiographic and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging studies, and outcome after valve intervention. In addition, it will also provide some brief insights on the exercise physiology in women and men with AS.Expert commentary: Women at presentation are often older, have higher prevalence of hypertension and diastolic dysfunction, while men are younger, and more often have a bicuspid aortic valve and higher atherosclerotic disease burden. Men have more valve calcification than women for a given severity of AS and develop different patterns of LV remodeling and myocardial fibrosis. Although women tend to walk shorter on treadmill and achieve lower metabolic equivalents, they achieve similar peak heart rates and blood pressure, and the frequency of revealed symptoms during exercise test is comparable in both sexes. Men are more likely to undergo a surgical AVR with better outcome, while women have generally better outcome after TAVI.

2019 Canadian Cardiovascular Society Position Statement for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or replacement has rapidly changed the treatment of patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. It is now the standard of care for patients believed to be inoperable or at high surgical risk, and a reasonable alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement for those at intermediate surgical risk. Recent clinical trial data have shown the benefits of this technology in patients at low surgical risk as well. This update of the 2012 Canadian Cardiovascular Society TAVI position statement incorporates clinical evidence to provide a practical framework for patient selection that does not rely on surgical risk scores but rather on individual patient evaluation of risk and benefit from either TAVI or surgical aortic valve replacement. In addition, this statement features new wait time categories and treatment time goals for patients accepted for TAVI. Institutional requirements and recommendations for operator training and maintenance of competency have also been revised to reflect current standards. Procedural considerations such as decision-making for concomitant coronary intervention, antiplatelet therapy after intervention, and follow-up guidelines are also discussed. Finally, we suggest that all patients with aortic stenosis might benefit from evaluation by the heart team to determine the optimal individualized treatment decision.

Prognostic Value of Right Ventricular Dysfunction and Tricuspid Regurgitation in Patients with Severe Low-Flow Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis

Long and mid-term data in Low-Flow Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis (LFLG-AS) are scarce. The present study sought to identify predictors of outcome in a sizeable cohort of patients with LFLG-AS. 76 consecutive patients with LFLG-AS (defined by a mean gradient <40 mmHg, an aortic valve area ≤1 cm² and an ejection fraction ≤50%) were prospectively enrolled and followed at regular intervals. Events defined as aortic valve replacement (AVR) and death were assessed and overall survival was determined. 44 patients underwent AVR (10 transcatheter and 34 surgical) whilst intervention was not performed in 32 patients, including 9 patients that died during a median waiting time of 4 months. Survival was significantly better after AVR with survival rates of 91.8% (CI 71.1–97.9%), 83.0% (CI 60.7–93.3%) and 56.3% (CI 32.1–74.8%) at 1,2 and 5 years as compared to 84.3% (CI 66.2–93.1%), 52.9% (CI 33.7–69.0%) and 30.3% (CI 14.6–47.5%), respectively, for patients managed conservatively (p = 0.017). The presence of right ventricular dysfunction (HR 3.47 [1.70–7.09]) and significant tricuspid regurgitation (TR) (HR 2.23 [1.13–4.39]) independently predicted overall mortality while the presence of significant TR (HR 3.40[1.38–8.35]) and higher aortic jet velocity (HR 0.91[0.82–1.00]) were independent predictors of mortality and survival after AVR. AVR is associated with improved long-term survival in patients with LFLG-AS. Treatment delays are associated with excessive mortality, warranting urgent treatment in eligible patients. Right ventricular involvement characterized by the presence of TR and/or right ventricular dysfunction, identifies patients at high risk of mortality under both conservative management and after AVR.

Myocardial Scar and Mortality in Severe Aortic Stenosis

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Background:

Aortic valve replacement (AVR) for aortic stenosis is timed primarily on the development of symptoms, but late surgery can result in irreversible myocardial dysfunction and additional risk. The aim of this study was to determine whether the presence of focal myocardial scar preoperatively was associated with long-term mortality.

Methods:

In a longitudinal observational outcome study, survival analysis was performed in patients with severe aortic stenosis listed for valve intervention at 6 UK cardiothoracic centers. Patients underwent preprocedural echocardiography (for valve severity assessment) and cardiovascular magnetic resonance for ventricular volumes, function and scar quantification between January 2003 and May 2015. Myocardial scar was categorized into 3 patterns (none, infarct, or noninfarct patterns) and quantified with the full width at half-maximum method as percentage of the left ventricle. All-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality were tracked for a minimum of 2 years.

Results:

Six hundred seventy-four patients with severe aortic stenosis (age, 75±14 years; 63% male; aortic valve area, 0.38±0.14 cm²/m²; mean gradient, 46±18 mm Hg; left ventricular ejection fraction, 61.0±16.7%) were included. Scar was present in 51% (18% infarct pattern, 33% noninfarct). Management was surgical AVR (n=399) or transcatheter AVR (n=275). During follow-up (median, 3.6 years), 145 patients (21.5%) died (52 after surgical AVR, 93 after transcatheter AVR). In multivariable analysis, the factors independently associated with all-cause mortality were age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.50; 95% CI, 1.11–2.04; P=0.009, scaled by epochs of 10 years), Society of Thoracic Surgeons score (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03–1.22; P=0.007), and scar presence (HR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.40–4.05; P=0.001). Scar independently predicted all-cause (26.4% versus 12.9%; P<0.001) and cardiovascular (15.0% versus 4.8%; P<0.001) mortality, regardless of intervention (transcatheter AVR, P=0.002; surgical AVR, P=0.026 [all-cause mortality]). Every 1% increase in left ventricular myocardial scar burden was associated with 11% higher all-cause mortality hazard (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.05–1.17; P<0.001) and 8% higher cardiovascular mortality hazard (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.01–1.17; P<0.001).

Conclusions:

In patients with severe aortic stenosis, late gadolinium enhancement on cardiovascular magnetic resonance was independently associated with mortality; its presence was associated with a 2-fold higher late mortality.

Facilitated Data Relay and Effects on Treatment of Severe Aortic Stenosis in Europe

Background

Many patients with severe aortic stenosis are referred late with advanced symptoms or inappropriately denied intervention. The objective was to investigate whether a structured communication to referring physicians (facilitated data relay) might improve the rate and timeliness of intervention.

Methods and Results

A prospective registry of consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis at 23 centers in 9 European countries with transcatheter as well as surgical aortic valve replacement being available was performed. The study included a 3‐month documentation of the status quo (phase A), a 6‐month intervention phase (implementing facilitated data relay), and a 3‐month documentation of a legacy effect (phase‐B). Two thousand one hundred seventy‐one patients with severe aortic stenoses were enrolled (phase A: 759; intervention: 905; phase‐B: 507). Mean age was 77.9±10.0 years, and 80% were symptomatic, including 52% with severe symptoms. During phase A, intervention was planned in 464/696 (67%), 138 (20%) were assigned to watchful waiting, 8 (1%) to balloon aortic valvuloplasty, 60 (9%) were listed as not for active treatment, and in 26 (4%), no decision was made. Three hundred sixty‐three of 464 (78%) patients received the planned intervention within 3 months. Timeliness of the intervention improved as shown by the higher number of aortic valve replacements performed within 3 months (59% versus 51%, P=0.002) and a significant decrease in the time to intervention (36±38 versus 30±33 days, P=0.002).

Conclusions

A simple, low‐cost, facilitated data relay improves timeliness of treatment for patients diagnosed with severe aortic stenosis, resulting in a shorter time to transcatheter aortic valve replacement. This effect was mainly driven by a significant improvement in timeliness of intervention in transcatheter aortic valve replacement but not surgical aortic valve replacement.

Clinical Trial Registration

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/. Unique identifier: NCT02241447.

Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis-When to Intervene: a Review of the Literature, Current Trials, and Guidelines

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The optimal treatment for asymptomatic patients with severe aortic valve stenosis (AS) is not clearly known. Here, we review the available data on the management of such patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Half of patients with severe AS are asymptomatic at the time of diagnosis, and are at risk for adverse events, including sudden cardiac death. A significant proportion of these patients develop AS-related symptoms within 1 or 2 years. Clinical and echocardiographic characteristics are predictors of poor outcomes and can guide treatment decisions. Several non-randomized studies and meta-analyses have suggested benefit from early AVR for asymptomatic severe AS, including improved all-cause, cardiovascular, and valve-related mortality. Based on the available information, current guidelines suggest aortic valve replacement in the presence of specific characteristic, including left ventricular dysfunction and very severe AS with significantly elevated gradients. Although the available data suggests early AVR improves the clinical outcomes of these patients, most patients in current practice are managed conservatively. Six randomized trials are ongoing to better elucidate the ideal management of asymptomatic severe AS patients.

Absence of electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy is associated with increased mortality after transcatheter aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

Electrocardiographic (ECG) left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) has been associated with increased mortality in patients with asymptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) and hypertension. However, patients with symptomatic AS undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have higher percentages of myocardial fibrosis or amyloidosis that have been associated with decreased ECG voltage and worse outcomes.

HYPOTHESIS

We tested the hypothesis that baseline ECG LVH is independently associated with increased all-cause mortality after TAVR.

METHODS

A total of 231 patients (96 men; mean age 84.7 ± 7.8 years) that underwent TAVR at our institution were included. Cornell voltage, defined as S_V3 + R_aVL, was used to assess for presence of ECG LVH using gender-specific cut-off values. We used the Kaplan-Meier estimator to derive survival curves. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to compare mortality between patients without vs with ECG LVH and adjust for echocardiographic LVH and predictors of mortality in this cohort.

RESULTS

Over a follow-up time of 16.3 ± 10.4 months, the absence of ECG LVH was significantly associated with increased mortality (40.4% vs 23.6% at 2-years, log rank P = 0.003). After adjusting for echocardiographic LVH and predictors of mortality in our cohort, the absence of ECG LVH remained a predictor of increased mortality (HR = 1.79, CI 95% 1.02-3.14, P = 0.042).

CONCLUSIONS

The absence of ECG LVH was independently associated with increased mortality in patients undergoing TAVR. Baseline ECG may have an important prognostic role in these patients and could lead to further testing to evaluate for myocardial fibrosis or amyloidosis.

Temporal Trends and Clinical Consequences of Wait Times for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Background:

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) represents a paradigm shift in the therapeutic options for patients with severe aortic stenosis. However, rapid and exponential growth in TAVR demand may overwhelm capacity, translating to inadequate access and prolonged wait times. Our objective was to evaluate temporal trends in TAVR wait times and the associated clinical consequences.

Methods:

In this population-based study in Ontario, Canada, we identified all TAVR referrals from April 1, 2010, to March 31, 2016. The primary outcome was the median total wait time from referral to procedure. Piecewise regression analyses were performed to assess temporal trends in TAVR wait times, before and after provincial reimbursement in September 2012. Clinical outcomes included all-cause death and heart failure hospitalizations while on the wait list.

Results:

The study cohort included 4461 referrals, of which 50% led to a TAVR, 39% were off-listed for other reasons, and 11% remained on the wait list at the conclusion of the study. For patients who underwent a TAVR, the estimated median wait time in the postreimbursement period stabilized at 80 days and has remained unchanged. The cumulative probability of wait-list mortality and heart failure hospitalization at 80 days was ≈2% and 12%, respectively, with a relatively constant increase in events with increased wait times.

Conclusions:

Postreimbursement wait time has remained unchanged for patients undergoing a TAVR procedure, suggesting the increase in capacity has kept pace with the increase in demand. The current wait time of almost 3 months is associated with important morbidity and mortality, suggesting a need for greater capacity and access.

Usefulness of Electrocardiographic Strain to Predict Survival After Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Stenosis

Electrocardiographic (ECG) strain has been reported as a specific marker of midwall left ventricular (LV) myocardial fibrosis, predictive of adverse clinical outcomes in aortic stenosis (AS), but its prognostic impact after aortic valve replacement (AVR) is unknown. We aimed to assess the impact of ECG strain on long-term mortality after surgical AVR for AS. From January 2005 to January 2014, patients with interpretable preoperative ECG who underwent isolated AVR for AS were included. ECG strain was defined as ≥1-mm concave downslopping ST-segment depression with asymmetrical T-wave inversion in lateral leads. Mortality was assessed over a follow-up period of 4.8 ± 2.7 years. Among the 390 patients included, 110 had ECG strain (28%). They had significantly lower body mass index, higher mean transaortic pressure gradient and Cornell-product ECG LV hypertrophy than in those without ECG strain. There was also a trend for lower LV ejection fraction in patients with ECG strain as compared with those without. Patients with ECG strain had significantly lower 8-year survival than those without. ECG strain remained associated with reduced survival both in patients with and without LV hypertrophy (p <0.0001 for both). After adjustment, ECG strain remained a strong and independent determinant of long-term survival (hazard ratio 4.4, p <0.0001). Similar results were found in patients with LV hypertrophy or without LV hypertrophy. In the multivariate model, the addition of ECG strain provided incremental prognostic value (p <0.0001). In conclusion, in patients with AS, ECG strain is associated with 4-fold increased risk of long-term mortality after isolated AVR, regardless of preoperative LV hypertrophy.

Stress Testing in Asymptomatic Aortic Stenosis

Aortic stenosis is 1 of the most common heart valve diseases among adults. When symptoms develop, prognosis is poor, and current guidelines recommend prompt aortic valve replacement. Depending of the severity of the aortic stenosis and the presence of concomitant heart disease and medical comorbidities, stress testing represents a reasonable strategy to help better risk stratify asymptomatic patients. The present report provides a comprehensive review of the current available data on stress testing in aortic stenosis and subsequently summarizes its potential for guiding the optimal timing of aortic valve replacement.

Treatment of asymptomatic aortic valve stenosis : Watchful waiting or early intervention?

There is ongoing debate about the optimal management of severe asymptomatic aortic stenosis (AS). Thus far, current guidelines recommend a watchful waiting strategy for the majority of asymptomatic patients. However, data on the prognosis of asymptomatic AS are inconsistent. Some reports claim an increased risk of complications and even mortality in this subset of patients when treated conservatively. Several factors are considered to contribute to the impaired outcome of asymptomatic patients, such as progressive myocardial damage or sudden cardiac death, during the watchful waiting period. Indeed, a few nonrandomized studies are available in the literature showing improved survival with early aortic valve replacement during the asymptomatic phase compared with watchful waiting. However, these studies have several limitations particularly with regard to methodology, and thus making a clear recommendation on treatment options impossible. Therefore, randomized controlled trials are urgently needed in order to treat these patients on the basis of adequate evidence.

Role of a heart valve clinic programme in the management of patients with aortic stenosis

AIMS

We sought to assess the efficacy of a heart valve clinic (HVC) follow-up programme for patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Three hundred and eighty-eight consecutive patients with AS (age 71 ± 10 years; aortic-jet velocity 5.1 ± 0.6 m/s) and an indication for aortic valve replacement (AVR) were included. Of these, 290 patients presented with an indication for surgery at their first visit at the HVC and 98 asymptomatic patients who had been enrolled in an HVC monitoring programme developed indications for surgery during follow-up. Time to symptom detection was significantly longer in patients that presented with symptoms at baseline (352 ± 471 days) than in patients followed in the HVC (76 ± 75 days, P < 0.001). Despite being educated to recognize and promptly report new symptoms, 77 of the 98 patients in the HVC programme waited until the next scheduled consultation to report them. Severe symptom onset (NYHA or CCS Class ≥III) was present in 61% of patients being symptomatic at the initial visit and in 34% of patients in the HVC programme (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Delays in referral and symptom reporting as well as symptom denial are common in patients with AS. These findings support the concept of risk stratification to identify patients who may benefit from elective surgery. A structured HVC programme results in the detection of symptoms at an earlier and less severe stage and thus in an optimized timing of surgery.

Natural History, Diagnostic Approaches, and Therapeutic Strategies for Patients With Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis

Aortic stenosis (AS) is one of the most common valvular diseases encountered in clinical practice. Current guidelines recommend aortic valve replacement (AVR) when the aortic valve is severely stenotic and the patient is symptomatic; however, a substantial proportion of patients with severe AS are asymptomatic at the time of first diagnosis. Although specific morphological valve features, exercise testing, stress imaging, and biomarkers can help to identify patients with asymptomatic severe AS who may benefit from early AVR, the optimal management of these patients remains uncertain and controversial. The current report presents a comprehensive review of the natural history and the diagnostic evaluation of asymptomatic patients with severe AS, and is followed by a meta-analysis from reported studies comparing an early AVR strategy to active surveillance, with an emphasis on the level of evidence substantiating the current guideline recommendations. Finally, perspectives on directions for future investigation are discussed.

Portuguese Society of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery/Portuguese Society of Cardiology recommendations for waiting times for cardiac surgery

Appointed jointly by the Portuguese Society of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery (SPCCTV) and the Portuguese Society of Cardiology (SPC), the Working Group on Waiting Times for Cardiac Surgery was established with the aim of developing practical recommendations for clinically acceptable waiting times for the three critical phases of the care of adults with heart disease who require surgery or other cardiological intervention: cardiology appointments; the diagnostic process; and invasive treatment. Cardiac surgery has specific characteristics that are not comparable to other surgical specialties. It is important to reduce maximum waiting times and to increase the efficacy of systems for patient monitoring and tracking. The information in this document is mainly based on available clinical information. The methodology used to establish the criteria was based on studies on the natural history of heart disease, clinical studies comparing medical treatment with intervention, retrospective and prospective analyses of patients on waiting lists, and the opinions of experts and working groups. Following the first step, represented by publication of this document, the SPCCTV and SPC, as the bodies best suited to oversee this process, are committed to working together to define operational strategies that will reconcile the clinical evidence with the actual situation and with available resources.

Exercise stress echocardiography with tissue Doppler imaging in risk stratification of mild to moderate aortic stenosis

BACKGROUND

Patients with mild to moderate aortic stenosis (AS) seem to have a worse outcome than commonly expected. Early identification of subjects who may develop a rapid disease progression or cardiovascular events is critical in order to apply adequate risk management.

STUDY DESIGN

Observational prospective single-centre study.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the prognostic role of exercise stress echocardiography (ESE) in patients with mild and moderate asymptomatic AS.

PATIENTS

Ninety consecutive patients (mean age 74 ± 12 years) with isolated mild and moderate AS were enrolled into the study protocol over a 20 months period. Follow-up time was 12 months.

METHODS

A complete echocardiographic study with tissue Doppler imaging (TDI) was performed at baseline and during semi-supine symptom-limited exercise test to evaluate: (1) the occurrence of symptoms, (2) ST segment changes, (3) transaortic pressure gradient, (4) the E/A ratio, (5) the E/e' ratio and (6) the systolic pulmonary artery pressure.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

During the 1 year follow-up time, we evaluated the occurrence of adverse cardiac events, defined as any of the following: (1) cardio-vascular hospitalization; (2) requirement for aortic valve replacement; (3) cardiac death.

RESULTS

During follow-up, three patients died, 11 underwent aortic valve replacement and 26 had cardiovascular hospitalizations. On univariate analysis, patients who exhibited symptoms during exercise (HR 2.93, p = 0.003); the occurrence of a ≥ 2 mm exercise-induced ST segment depression (HR 3.12, p = 0.001); a ≥ 15 mmHg increase in mean transaortic pressure gradient during exercise (HR 2.77, p = 0.001); a ≥ 50 mmHg exercise-induced increase in systolic pulmonary artery pressure (HR 2.90, p = 0.009); an exercise-induced pseudo-normalization of the E/A ratio (E/A ≥ 1) (HR 7.50, p = 0.0001) and, particularly, a ≥ 15 exercise-induced increase in the E/e' ratio (HR 7.69, p = 0.0001) had a significantly higher risk of cardiac events during the follow-up time. On multivariate analysis, only the latter covariate (HR 6.04, p = 0.009) was independently associated with adverse cardiac events.

CONCLUSIONS

A ≥ 15 stress-induced increase in E/e' ratio is highly predictive of cardiac events in patients with mild to moderate AS. Assessment of diastolic function using TDI during ESE provides additional prognostic information in such patients.

Left ventricular hypertrophy with strain and aortic stenosis

BACKGROUND

ECG left ventricular hypertrophy with strain is associated with an adverse prognosis in aortic stenosis. We investigated the mechanisms and outcomes associated with ECG strain.

METHODS AND RESULTS

One hundred and two patients (age, 70 years [range, 63-75 years]; male, 66%; aortic valve area, 0.9 cm(2) [range, 0.7-1.2 cm(2)]) underwent ECG, echocardiography, and cardiovascular magnetic resonance. They made up the mechanism cohort. Myocardial fibrosis was determined with late gadolinium enhancement (replacement fibrosis) and T1 mapping (diffuse fibrosis). The relationship between ECG strain and cardiovascular magnetic resonance was then assessed in an external validation cohort (n=64). The outcome cohort was made up of 140 patients from the Scottish Aortic Stenosis and Lipid Lowering Trial Impact on Regression (SALTIRE) study and was followed up for 10.6 years (1254 patient-years). Compared with those without left ventricular hypertrophy (n=51) and left ventricular hypertrophy without ECG strain (n=30), patients with ECG strain (n=21) had more severe aortic stenosis, increased left ventricular mass index, more myocardial injury (high-sensitivity plasma cardiac troponin I concentration, 4.3 ng/L [interquartile range, 2.5-7.3 ng/L] versus 7.3 ng/L [interquartile range, 3.2-20.8 ng/L] versus 18.6 ng/L [interquartile range, 9.0-45.2 ng/L], respectively; P<0.001) and increased diffuse fibrosis (extracellular volume fraction, 27.4±2.2% versus 27.2±2.9% versus 30.9±1.9%, respectively; P<0.001). All patients with ECG strain had midwall late gadolinium enhancement (positive and negative predictive values of 100% and 86%, respectively). Indeed, late gadolinium enhancement was independently associated with ECG strain (odds ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-2.77; P=0.02), a finding confirmed in the validation cohort. In the outcome cohort, ECG strain was an independent predictor of aortic valve replacement or cardiovascular death (hazard ratio, 2.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-5.27; P<0.01).

CONCLUSION

ECG strain is a specific marker of midwall myocardial fibrosis and predicts adverse clinical outcomes in aortic stenosis.

Mortality while waiting for aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

Severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) is associated with high mortality without intervention. The impact of waiting time for aortic valve replacement (AVR), either surgically or transcatheter, has not been reported.

METHODS

From January 2008 to December 2012, we identified 1,005 patients with severe symptomatic AS. AVR was recommended for 823 patients (82%). Of these 823 patients, 721 (87.6%) underwent AVR. We modeled overall survival (OS) since AVR recommendation or intervention date using Cox and multistate models.

RESULTS

Overall, the median (first, third quartiles) waiting time until operation was 2.9 (1.3, 5.1) weeks. Mortality at these times was lower (p<0.001) in the AVR group (1.2%, 0.3%, 1.7%, respectively) than in the group that did not receive AVR (6.9%, 2.9%, 9.8%, respectively). Thirty-day mortality after AVR was 3.9% (3.2% surgical AVR [SAVR] and 7.0% transcatheter AVR [TAVR]). In patients receiving AVR, waiting time was not associated with increased mortality. Mortality while waiting for AVR was 3.7% and 11.6% at 1 and 6 months, respectively. Mortality while waiting for TAVR was higher than that for SAVR (1-, 6-, and 12-month mortality of 3.7%, 8.0%, and 9.6%, respectively, in SAVR group and 3.8%, 23.3%, and 27.5%, respectively, in TAVR group; p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Some patients do not receive AVR in a timely fashion, and prolonged waiting time for AVR is associated with mortality greater than the AVR operative mortality. Although waiting time was not associated with poor operative outcomes after AVR, many patients may die while waiting for AVR. Patients should receive AVR on a semiurgent, not elective, basis.

Acquired aortic stenosis

Aortic stenosis is the most commonly encountered valvular disease in the elderly, with approximately 2-3% of individuals over 65 years of age afflicted. The most common cause of acquired aortic stenosis is calcific degeneration, characterized by a slowly progressive, asymptomatic period which can last decades. Once symptomatic, the clinical manifestation of aortic stenosis is from functional obstruction of left ventricular outflow and the additional hemodynamic effects on the left ventricle and vasculature. With advances in echocardiography, individuals with aortic stenosis are increasingly diagnosed in the asymptomatic latent period. However, echocardiographic measures alone cannot identify clinically significant outflow obstruction as there is considerable overlap in hemodynamic severity between symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals. Current clinical guidelines predicate the timing of surgical valve replacement on the presence or absence of symptoms. Management for symptomatic, significant stenosis is surgical valve replacement as there are no current medical therapies reliably proven to decrease aortic stenosis severity or improve long-term outcomes. However, recent retrospective studies have demonstrated an association between atherosclerotic disease risk factors, such as hyperlipidemia and aortic stenosis. Given these findings, there are now advocates for prospective primary prevention trials for aortic stenosis in patients with mild or moderate valvular disease. The following paper will discuss etiology, diagnostic evaluation and therapeutic options of acquired aortic stenosis. This review will discuss etiology, diagnostic evaluation, and therapeutic options of acquired aortic stenosis.

Prognostic value of energy loss index in asymptomatic aortic stenosis

BACKGROUND

Aortic valve area index adjusted for pressure recovery (energy loss index [ELI]) has been suggested as a more accurate measure of aortic stenosis (AS) severity, but its prognostic value has not been determined in a prospective study.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The relation between baseline ELI and rate of aortic valve events and combined total mortality and hospitalization for heart failure resulting from the progression of AS was assessed by multivariate Cox regression and reclassification analysis in 1563 patients with initial asymptomatic AS in the Simvastatin and Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis (SEAS) study. During 4.3 years follow-up, a total of 498 aortic valve events and 181 combined total mortalities and hospitalizations for heart failure caused by the progression of AS occurred. In Cox regression analyses, 1-cm(2)/m(2) lower baseline ELI predicted a 2-fold higher risk both for aortic valve events and for combined total mortality and hospitalization for heart failure independently of baseline peak aortic jet velocity or mean aortic gradient and independently of aortic root size (all P<0.05). In reclassification analysis, ELI improved the prediction of aortic valve events by 13% (95% confidence interval, 5-19), whereas the prediction of combined total mortality and hospitalization for heart failure resulting from the progression of AS did not improve significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

In asymptomatic AS patients without known atherosclerotic disease or diabetes mellitus, ELI provides independent and additional prognostic information to that derived from conventional measures of AS severity, suggesting that ELI should be measured in such patients.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00092677.

Assessment of subendocardial contractile function in aortic stenosis: a study using speckle tracking echocardiography

BACKGROUND

Angina and an electrocardiographic strain pattern are potential manifestations of subendocardial ischemia in aortic stenosis (AS). Left ventricular (LV) twist is known to increase proportionally to the severity of AS, which may be a result of loss of the inhibiting effect of the subendocardial fibers due to subendocardial dysfunction. It has also been shown that the ratio of LV twist to circumferential shortening of the endocardium (twist-to-shortening ratio [TSR]) is a reliable parameter of subendocardial dysfunction. The aim of this study was to investigate whether these markers are increased in AS patients with angina and/or electrocardiographic strain.

METHODS

The study comprised 60 AS patients with an aortic valve area <2.0 cm(2) and LV ejection fraction >50%, and 30 healthy-for age and gender matched-control subjects. LV rotation parameters were determined by speckle tracking echocardiography.

RESULTS

Comparison of patients without angina and strain (n = 22), with either angina or strain (n = 28), and with both angina and strain (n = 8), showed highest peak systolic LV apical rotation, peak systolic LV twist, and TSR, in patients with more signs of subendocardial ischemia. In a multivariate linear regression model, only severity of AS and the presence of angina and/or strain could be identified as independent predictors of peak systolic LV twist and TSR.

CONCLUSIONS

Peak systolic LV twist and TSR are increased in AS patients and related to the severity of AS and symptoms (angina) or electrocardiographic signs (strain) compatible with subendocardial ischemia.

Prognostic value of aortic valve area index in asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis

Recently, an aortic valve area (AVA) index (AVAI) <0.6 cm(2)/m(2) was proposed as an indicator of severe aortic stenosis. The purpose of the present study was to clarify the prognostic value of the AVAI. We identified 103 consecutive asymptomatic patients (mean age 72 ± 11 years) with severe aortic stenosis, defined by an AVA of <1.0 cm(2), who had not undergone aortic valve replacement on initial evaluation. During follow-up (median 36 ± 27 months), 31 aortic valve replacements and 20 cardiac deaths occurred. Multivariate analysis revealed that an AVAI <0.6 cm(2)/m(2) (hazard ratio 2.6, 95% confidence interval 1.1 to 6.3; p = 0.03) and peak aortic jet velocity (Vp) >4.0 m/s (hazard ratio 2.6, 95% confidence interval 1.2 to 5.8; p = 0.02) were associated with cardiac events but that an AVA <0.75 cm(2) was not. The event-free survival of patients with an AVAI of ≥0.6 cm(2)/m(2) was better than that for those with an AVAI <0.6 cm(2)/m(2) (86% vs 41% at 3 years, p <0.01). Furthermore, patients with an AVAI of ≥0.6 cm(2)/m(2) and Vp of ≤4.0 m/s showed an excellent prognosis, but those without these findings had poorer outcomes. In conclusion, AVAI is a powerful predictor of adverse events in asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis. Furthermore, the combination of AVAI and Vp provides additional prognostic information. Watchful observations are required for timely aortic valve replacement in patients with an AVAI of <0.6 cm(2)/m(2) or a Vp >4.0 m/s.

Clinical implications of electrocardiographic left ventricular strain and hypertrophy in asymptomatic patients with aortic stenosis: the Simvastatin and Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis study

BACKGROUND

The prognostic impact of ECG left ventricular strain and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) in asymptomatic aortic stenosis is not well described.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Data were obtained in asymptomatic patients randomized to simvastatin/ezetimibe combination versus placebo in the Simvastatin and Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis (SEAS) study. Primary end point was the first of myocardial infarction, nonhemorrhagic stroke, heart failure, aortic valve replacement, or cardiovascular death. The predictive value of ECG left ventricular strain (defined as T-wave inversion in leads V(4) through V(6)) and LVH, assessed by Sokolow-Lyon voltage criteria (R(V5-6)+S(V1) ≥35 mV) and Cornell voltage-duration criteria {[RaVL+S(V3)+(6 mV in women)]×QRS duration ≥2440 mV · ms}, was evaluated by adjustment for other prognostic covariates. A total of 1533 patients were followed for 4.3±0.8 years (6592 patient-years of follow-up), and 627 cardiovascular events occurred. ECG strain was present in 340 patients (23.6%), with LVH by Sokolow-Lyon voltage in 260 (17.1%) and by Cornell voltage-duration product in 220 (14.6%). In multivariable analyses, ECG left ventricular strain was associated with 3.1-fold higher risk of in-study myocardial infarction (95% confidence interval, 1.4-6.8; P=0.004). Similarly, ECG LVH by both criteria predicted, compared with no ECG LVH, 5.8-fold higher risk of heart failure (95% confidence interval, 2.0-16.8), 2.0-fold higher risk of aortic valve replacement (95% confidence interval, 1.3-3.1; both P=0.001), and 2.5-fold higher risk of a combined end point of myocardial infarction, heart failure, or cardiovascular death (95% confidence interval, 1.3-4.9; P=0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

ECG left ventricular strain and LVH were independently predictive of poor prognosis in patients with asymptomatic aortic stenosis.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00092677.

2-year follow-up of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation using a self-expanding valve prosthesis

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety, device performance, and clinical outcome up to 2 years for patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).

BACKGROUND

The role of TAVI in the treatment of calcific aortic stenosis evolves rapidly, but mid- and long-term results are scarce.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, multicenter, single-arm study with symptomatic patients undergoing TAVI for treatment of severe aortic valve stenosis using the 18-F Medtronic CoreValve (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota) prosthesis.

RESULTS

In all, 126 patients (mean age 82 years, 42.9% male, mean logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation score 23.4%) with severe aortic valve stenosis (mean gradient 46.8 mm Hg) underwent the TAVI procedure. Access was transfemoral in all but 2 cases with subclavian access. Retrospective risk stratification classified 54 patients as moderate surgical risk, 51 patients as high-risk operable, and 21 patients as high-risk inoperable. The overall technical success rate was 83.1%. Thirty-day all-cause mortality was 15.2%, without significant differences in the subgroups. At 2 years, all-cause mortality was 38.1%, with a significant difference between the moderate-risk group and the combined high-risk groups (27.8% vs. 45.8%, p = 0.04). This difference was mainly attributable to an increased risk of noncardiac mortality among patients constituting the high-risk groups. Hemodynamic results remained unchanged during follow-up (mean gradient: 8.5 ± 2.5 mm Hg at 30 days and 9.0 ± 3.4 mm Hg at 2 years). Functional class improved in 80% of patients and remained stable over time. There was no incidence of structural valve deterioration.

CONCLUSIONS

The TAVI procedure provides sustained clinical and hemodynamic benefits for as long as 2 years for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis at increased risk for surgery.

[Role of natriuretic peptides in the assessment of aortic stenosis severity]

BACKGROUND/AIM

Symptom onset is a critical point in natural course of aortic stenosis and the most important indication for aortic valve replacement. The aim of the study was to evaluate the role of natriuretic peptides level in the assessment of symtomatic status of patients with severe aortic stenosis and the preserved left ventricular systolic function.

METHODS

In 67 patients with isolated severe aortic stenosis symptomatic status, transthoracic echocardiography, and BNP and NT-proBNP plasma level were assesed. Natriuretic peptides levels were also measured in 36 healthy controls.

RESULTS

BNP and NT-proBNP levels were significantly higher in the patients with aortic stenosis compared with the healthy controls. The symptomatic patients had a higher level of natriuretic peptides than the asymptomatic ones (BNP 118 [29-266] vs. 79 [44-90] pg/mL, p < 0.001; NT-proBNP 258 [67-520], vs. 79 [77-112] pmol/L, p < 0.0001). Natriuretic peptides levels increased with the severity of NYHA class. NT-proBNP level higher than 122 pmol/L was a cutoff value for detection of symptoms in the patients with severe aortic stenosis.

CONCLUSION

The levels of natriuretic peptides were significantly higher in the patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis, and increased with NYHA class. Measurement of natriuretic peptides levels could be important addition to clinical and echocardiographic assesment in determing optimal timing for valve replacement in aortic stenosis.

Natural history of very severe aortic stenosis

BACKGROUND

We sought to assess the outcome of asymptomatic patients with very severe aortic stenosis.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We prospectively followed 116 consecutive asymptomatic patients (57 women; age, 67 + or - 16 years) with very severe isolated aortic stenosis defined by a peak aortic jet velocity (AV-Vel) > or = 5.0 m/s (average AV-Vel, 5.37 + or - 0.35 m/s; valve area, 0.63 + or - 0.12 cm(2)). During a median follow-up of 41 months (interquartile range, 26 to 63 months), 96 events occurred (indication for aortic valve replacement, 90; cardiac deaths, 6). Event-free survival was 64%, 36%, 25%, 12%, and 3% at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 years, respectively. AV-Vel but not aortic valve area was shown to independently affect event-free survival. Patients with an AV-Vel > or = 5.5 m/s had an event-free survival of 44%, 25%, 11%, and 4% at 1, 2, 3, and 4 years, respectively, compared with 76%, 43%, 33%, and 17% for patients with an AV-Vel between 5.0 and 5.5 m/s (P<0.0001). Six cardiac deaths occurred in previously asymptomatic patients (sudden death, 1; congestive heart failure, 4; myocardial infarction, 1). Patients with an initial AV-Vel > or = 5.5 m/s had a higher likelihood (52%) of severe symptom onset (New York Heart Association or Canadian Cardiovascular Society class >II) than those with an AV-Vel between 5.0 and 5.5 m/s (27%; P=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite being asymptomatic, patients with very severe aortic stenosis have a poor prognosis with a high event rate and a risk of rapid functional deterioration. Early elective valve replacement surgery should therefore be considered in these patients.

Diagnostic and referral delay in patients with aortic stenosis is common and negatively affects outcome

OBJECTIVE

Aortic stenosis (AS) patients are often severely symptomatic at the time of aortic valve replacement (AVR). We wanted to investigate doctors' delay and its impact on outcome.

DESIGN

AS patients undergoing AVR (n = 422) were included. Clinical and echocardiographic data at the time of diagnosis and preoperatively were noted. The risk of death after AVR was estimated using Poisson regression, incorporating age, gender, coronary artery disease, NYHA III/IV and time on the waiting list for AVR.

RESULTS

The age (mean+/-SD) was 71+/-8.6 years, 45% were women, and 48% were in NYHA III/IV. 55% underwent AVR within one year of diagnosis, indicating late diagnosis. The time from referral to AVR (median, range) was 112 (1-803) days. NYHA III/IV independently predicted mortality (hazard ratio 1.76, 95% CI 1.28-2.43, p = 0.0005). The time from referral to AVR influenced the risk of death immediately after operation (p = 0.0083).

CONCLUSION

Late diagnosis and late referral for AVR are common, and negatively influence outcome in patients with AS. Delay in surgery after referral increase the mortality immediately after AVR.

[Aortic stenosis: from diagnosis to optimal treatment]

Aortic stenosis is the most frequent valvular heart disease. Aortic sclerosis is the first characteristic lesion of the cusps, which is considered today as the process similar to atherosclerosis. Progression of the disease is an active process leading to forming of bone matrix and heavily calcified stiff cusps by inflammatory cells and osteopontin. It is a chronic, progressive disease which can remain asymptomatic for a long time even in the presence of severe aortic stenosis. Proper physical examination remains an essential diagnostic tool in aortic stenosis. Recognition of characteristic systolic murmur draws attention and guides further diagnosis in the right direction. Doppler echocardiography is an ideal tool to confirm diagnosis. It is well known that exercise tests help in stratification risk of asymptomatic aortic stenosis. Serial measurements of brain natriuretic peptide during a follow-up period may help to identify the optimal time for surgery. Heart catheterization is mostly restricted to preoperative evaluation of coronary arteries rather than to evaluation of the valve lesion itself. Currently, there is no ideal medical treatment for slowing down the disease progression. The first results about the effect of ACE inhibitors and statins in aortic sclerosis and stenosis are encouraging, but there is still not enough evidence. Onset symptoms based on current ACC/AHA/ESC recommendations are I class indication for aortic valve replacement. Aortic valve can be replaced with a biological or prosthetic valve. There is a possibility of percutaneous aortic valve implantation and transapical operation for patients that are contraindicated for standard cardiac surgery.