Key result
AVR is linked to ~84% lower mortality versus medical therapy in normal-flow low-gradient severe AS.
Why the study?
The study sought to assess the survival benefit of aortic valve replacement in patients with normal flow low gradient severe aortic stenosis.
Does aortic valve replacement improve survival in patients with normal flow low gradient severe aortic stenosis compared to medical treatment?
Cohort (n=276)
Does aortic valve replacement improve survival in patients with normal flow low gradient severe aortic stenosis compared to medical treatment?
Aortic valve replacement is associated with significantly improved survival compared to medical therapy in patients with normal flow low gradient severe aortic stenosis.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support AVR consideration in normal-flow low-gradient severe AS; leaves open need for randomized confirmation.
AIMS: To assess the survival benefit of aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients with normal flow low gradient severe aortic stenosis (AS). METHODS AND RESULTS: A retrospective study of prospectively collected data of 276 patients (mean age 75 ± 15 years, 51% male) with normal transaortic flow [flow rate (FR) ≥200 mL/s or stroke volume index (SVi) ≥35 mL/m2] and severe AS (aortic valve area <1.0 cm2). The outcome measure was all-cause mortality. Of the 276 patients, 151 (55%) were medically treated, while 125 (45%) underwent an AVR. Over a mean follow-up of 3.2 ± 1.8 years (range 0-6.9 years), a total of 96 (34.8%) deaths occurred: 17 (13.6%) in AVR group vs. 79 (52.3%) in those medically treated, when transaortic flow was defined by FR (P < 0.001). When transaortic flow was defined by SVi, a total of 79 (31.3%) deaths occurred: 18 (15.1%) in AVR group vs. 61 (45.9%) in medically treated (P < 0.001). In a propensity-matched multivariable Cox regression analysis adjusting for age, gender, body surface area, smoking, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, atrial fibrillation, peripheral vascular disease, chronic kidney disease, left ventricular ejection fraction, left ventricular mass, and mean aortic gradient, not having AVR was associated with a 6.3-fold higher hazard ratio (HR) of all-cause mortality [HR 6.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.34-13.16; P < 0.001] when flow was defined by FR. In the SVi-guided model, it was 3.83-fold (HR 3.83, 95% CI 2.30-6.37; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In patients with normal flow low gradient severe AS, AVR was associated with a significantly improved survival compared with those who received standard medical treatment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Saeed et al. (2019) conducted a cohort in Normal flow low gradient severe aortic stenosis (n=276). Aortic valve replacement (AVR) vs. Medical treatment was evaluated on All-cause mortality (HR 6.28 (for no AVR), 95% CI 3.34-13.16, p=<0.001). Aortic valve replacement in patients with normal flow low gradient severe aortic stenosis was associated with lower all-cause mortality compared to medical treatment.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: