Why the study?
Few data exist on the contemporary profiles and outcomes of patients with significant aortic regurgitation, and the benefits of AVR and prognostic value of LV dimensions needed assessment.
Does aortic valve repair or replacement (AVR) improve survival compared to medical therapy in patients with ≥moderate-severe chronic aortic regurgitation?
Does aortic valve repair or replacement (AVR) improve survival compared to medical therapy in patients with ≥moderate-severe chronic aortic regurgitation?
In patients with significant chronic aortic regurgitation, LV end-systolic dimension index is independently associated with all-cause mortality, suggesting the ideal cutoff for surgical intervention may be lower than currently recommended.
BACKGROUND: Few data exist on the contemporary profiles and outcomes of patients with significant aortic regurgitation (AR). OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the benefits of aortic valve repair or replacement (AVR) and the prognostic value of left ventricular (LV) dimensions in significant AR. METHODS: From 2006 to 2017, consecutive patients with ≥moderate-severe chronic AR without prior heart surgery, myocardial infarction, or overt coronary artery disease were included. RESULTS: Of 748 participants (58 ± 17 years of age; 82% men), 387 (52%) were medically treated, and 361 (48%) had AVR. Of 361 patients having AVR, 334 (93%) met guideline criteria: Class I indications in 284 (79%) patients, which included symptoms in 236, and Class II indications in 50 (14%). The remaining 27 (7%) opted for surgery without Class I or II indications. At a median follow-up of 4.9 years (interquartile range: 2.3 to 8.3 years), 125 (17%) patients had died. Age, comorbidities, baseline symptoms, and higher LV end-systolic dimension index (LVESDi) were associated with all-cause mortality (all p ≤ 0.01). Compared with patients having LVESDi <20 mm/m CONCLUSIONS: Class I indications for surgery, mainly symptoms, are the most common triggers for AVR. Class II indications were associated with better post-operative outcome and thus merit more attention. LVESDi was the only LV parameter independently associated with all-cause mortality and the ideal cutoff seems to be lower than previously recommended.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yang et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: