Rationale, Design, and Baseline Characteristics of the CURRENT AS Registry-2

Low-Gradient Severe Aortic Stenosis: Insights From the CURRENT AS Registry-2

BACKGROUND

Low-gradient (LG) aortic stenosis (AS) has not been fully characterized compared with high-gradient (HG) AS in terms of cardiac damage, frailty, aortic valve calcification, and clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical characteristics and outcomes between each hemodynamic type of LG AS and HG AS.

METHODS

The current study included 3,363 patients in the CURRENT AS (Contemporary outcomes after sURgery and medical tREatmeNT in patients with severe Aortic Stenosis) Registry-2 after excluding patients without indexed stroke volume or left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) data. Patients were divided into 4 groups (LG AS with reduced LVEF: n = 285; paradoxical low flow, low gradient [LFLG]: n = 220; normal flow, low gradient [NFLG]: n = 872; HG: n = 1,986).

RESULTS

Compared with HG AS, LG AS with reduced LVEF more often had cardiovascular comorbidities, advanced cardiac damage, and frailty with less severe valve calcification and paradoxical LFLG AS more often had atrial fibrillation, advanced cardiac damage, and frailty with less severe valve calcification, while NFLG AS had comparable cardiac damage and frailty with less severe valve calcification. Cumulative 3-year incidence of death or heart failure hospitalization was higher in LG AS with reduced LVEF and paradoxical LFLG than in HG AS. After adjusting for confounders, LG AS with reduced LVEF and paradoxical LFLG compared with HG AS were independently associated with higher risk for death or heart failure hospitalization (HR: 1.82; 95% CI: 1.49-2.23; P < 0.001; and HR: 1.43; 95% CI: 1.13-1.82; P = 0.003, respectively) but NFLG AS was not (HR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.88-1.21; P = 0.68).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical outcomes were significantly worse in LG AS with reduced LVEF and paradoxical LFLG AS and comparable in NFLG AS compared with HG AS.

Availability of transcatheter aortic valve implantation across hospitals and differences in strategies and clinical outcomes in patients with severe aortic stenosis

There was a scarcity of data evaluating variations in treatment approaches and clinical outcomes for severe aortic stenosis (AS) between medical centers with and without availability of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Current study population was 2993 patients with severe AS enrolled in the CURRENT AS Registry-2 (2581 patients from 10 TAVI centers; 412 patients from 10 non-TAVI centers). TAVI centers more frequently opted for the initial aortic valve replacement (AVR) strategy compared to non-TAVI centers (60% and 40%, P < 0.001). Among patients with the initial AVR strategy, TAVI centers disproportionately favored the initial TAVI strategy compared to non-TAVI centers (71% and 23%, P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in the risk of a composite of all-cause death or heart failure hospitalization between TAVI and non-TAVI centers in the entire study population (cumulative 3-year incidence: 32.0% and 31.0%, P = 0.37; adjusted hazard ratios: 0.92, 95% confidence intervals: 0.74-1.15, P = 0.45) or in conservative, initial AVR, initial surgical AVR, and initial TAVI strata. A substantial disparity exists in the treatment strategies for patients with severe AS between TAVI and non-TAVI centers. TAVI centers tended to perform AVR, particularly TAVI, earlier and more frequently. However, there was no discernible distinction in the risk of the composite of all-cause death or HF hospitalization between TAVI and non-TAVI centers. UMINID: UMIN000034169.

Concomitant Mitral Regurgitation in Severe Aortic Stenosis - Insights From the CURRENT AS Registry-2

BACKGROUND

Data on concomitant mitral regurgitation (MR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) are scarce.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We investigated the risk of concomitant MR in patients with severe AS in the CURRENT AS Registry-2 according to initial treatment strategy (transcatheter aortic valve implantation [TAVI], surgical aortic valve replacement [SAVR], or conservative). Among 3,365 patients with severe AS, 384 (11.4%) had moderate/severe MR (TAVI: n=126/1,148; SAVR: n=68/591; conservative: n=190/1,626). The cumulative 3-year incidence for death or heart failure (HF) hospitalization was significantly higher in the moderate/severe than no/mild MR group in the entire population (54.6% vs. 34.3%, respectively; P<0.001) and for each treatment strategy (TAVI: 45.0% vs. 31.8% [P=0.006]; SAVR: 31.9% vs. 18.7% [P<0.001]; conservative: 67.8% vs. 41.6% [P<0.001]). The higher adjusted risk of moderate/severe MR relative to no/mild MR for death or HF hospitalization was not significant in the entire population (hazard ratio [HR] 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95-1.39; P=0.15); however, the risk was significant in the SAVR (HR 1.92; 95% CI 1.04-3.56; P=0.04) and conservative (HR 1.30; 95% CI 1.02-1.67; P=0.04) groups, but not in the TAVI group (HR 1.03; 95% CI 0.70-1.52; P=0.86), despite no significant interaction (Pinteraction=0.37).

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate/severe MR was associated with a higher risk for death or HF hospitalization in the initial SAVR and conservative strategies, while the association was less pronounced in the initial TAVI strategy.

Clinically significant incidental noncardiac findings on preprocedural computed tomography in patients with aortic stenosis undergoing aortic-valve replacement

BACKGROUND

There is a scarcity of data on the prevalence of abnormal findings on preprocedural computed tomography (CT) before aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients with aortic stenosis (AS).

METHODS

Among consecutive 593 patients with severe AS who were planned to undergo AVR, we evaluated the prevalence of clinically significant incidental noncardiac findings on preprocedural CT. Clinically significant incidental noncardiac findings were defined as newly detected abnormalities that required therapy, consultation for expert, further investigation, or clinical follow-up.

RESULTS

The mean age was 82.0 years and 39.5 % of the patients were men. Of those, 78.4 % of the patients were treated with transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and 21.6 % of the patients were treated with surgical AVR (SAVR). There were 271 clinically significant incidental noncardiac findings in 227 patients (38.3 %) including 2.5 % of malignancy. The prevalence of clinically significant incidental noncardiac findings were higher in the TAVI group than in the SAVR group (40.2 % versus 31.3 %). The prevalence of clinically significant incidental noncardiac findings were lower in patients under 60 years of age (10.0 %) than in patients over 60 years of age (60-69 years: 40.0 %, 70-79 years: 34.3 %, 80-89 years: 39.7 %, and ≥90 years: 42.1 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinically significant incidental noncardiac findings were newly identified on preprocedural CT in approximately 40 % of patients with severe AS undergoing AVR including 2.5 % of malignancy.

Cerebrovascular Disease Detected on Preprocedural Computed Tomography in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis Undergoing Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

There is a scarcity of data on the prevalence and clinical impact of cerebrovascular disease detected on preprocedural computed tomography (CT) before aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Among patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing AVR, the authors compared clinical outcomes between patients with and without cerebrovascular disease detected on preprocedural CT, which was defined as chronic brain infarction or hemorrhage. The primary outcome measure in this study was a composite of all-cause death or stroke. Among 567 study patients, 200 patients (35.3%) had cerebrovascular disease on preprocedural CT. Among 200 patients with cerebrovascular disease on preprocedural CT, only 28.5% of patients had a clinical history of symptomatic stroke. The cumulative 3-year incidence of death or stroke was higher in patients with cerebrovascular disease on preprocedural CT than in those without cerebrovascular disease on preprocedural CT (40.7% versus 24.1%, log-rank P<0.001). After adjusting for confounders, the higher risk of patients with cerebrovascular disease on preprocedural CT relative to those without remained significant for death or stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 1.42 [95% CI, 1.02-1.98]; P=0.04). Among 200 patients with cerebrovascular disease on preprocedural CT, patients with prior symptomatic stroke compared with those without were not associated with higher adjusted risk for death or stroke (HR, 1.18 [95% CI, 0.72-1.94]; P=0.52).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing AVR, a substantial proportion had cerebrovascular disease on preprocedural CT, with a clinical history of symptomatic stroke in one-fourth of patients. Regardless of history of symptomatic stroke, patients with cerebrovascular disease on preprocedural CT had worse clinical outcomes compared with those without cerebrovascular disease on preprocedural CT.

Clinical Outcomes of Urgent or Emergency Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation - Insights From the Nationwide Registry of Japan Transcatheter Valve Therapies

BACKGROUND

Limited data are available for clinical outcomes in patients who underwent urgent or emergency transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). This study investigated in-hospital and 1-year outcomes and explored prognostic covariates in urgent/emergency TAVI using nationwide registry data.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Among 26,775 patients who underwent TAVI between August 2013 and December 2019, 25,495 with 1-year follow-up information were analyzed in this study. Baseline and procedural characteristics, as well as clinical adverse events, were compared between the urgent/emergency and elective TAVI groups. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 1 year after TAVI. Multivariable Cox regression models were constructed to identify independent predictors after urgent or emergency TAVI. Urgent or emergency TAVI was performed in 578 (2.3%) patients. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was significantly higher in the urgent/emergency than elective TAVI group (13.3% vs. 6.0%; P<0.001). Device success rate was comparable between the 2 groups. All-cause death-free survival within 1 year was lower in the urgent/emergency than elective TAVI group (77.2% vs. 92.2%; log rank P<0.001). Malignancy, albumin and creatinine concentrations, ejection fraction, and mean pressure gradient were associated with 1-year mortality in the urgent/emergency TAVI group.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite higher surgical risk and more comorbidities, the procedure was successfully performed in patients undergoing urgent/emergency TAVI, although it should be noted that prognosis was worse than for elective TAVI.