Key result
ECG strain pattern in TAVR patients is linked to ~175% higher HF rehospitalization risk.
Why the study?
Electrocardiographic strain pattern has been associated with adverse outcomes in aortic stenosis and after SAVR, but its impact and incremental value after TAVR remained unknown.
Does the presence of an electrocardiographic strain pattern predict adverse outcomes such as heart failure rehospitalization in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement?
Cohort (n=585)
Does the presence of an electrocardiographic strain pattern predict adverse outcomes such as heart failure rehospitalization in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement?
Effect estimate: HR 2.75 (95% CI 1.61-4.67)
Absolute Event Rate: 31.1% vs 11%
p-value: p=<0.001
Electrocardiographic strain pattern is a strong, independent predictor of heart failure rehospitalization after transcatheter aortic valve replacement, identifying patients who may benefit from closer follow-up.
ECG strain may prompt closer post-TAVR HF surveillance; supports risk stratification but needs prospective confirmation.
Background Electrocardiographic strain pattern (ESP) has recently been associated with increased adverse outcome in aortic stenosis and after surgical aortic valve replacement. Our study sought to determine the impact and incremental value of ESP pattern in predicting adverse outcome after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Methods and Results A total of 585 patients with severe aortic stenosis (mean age, 83±7 years; men, 39.8%) were enrolled for transcatheter aortic valve replacement from November 2012 to May 2018. ESP was defined as ≥1‐mm concave down‐sloping ST‐segment depression and asymmetrical T‐wave inversion in the lateral leads. The primary end points of the study were all‐cause mortality, rehospitalization for heart failure, myocardial infarction, and stroke. A total of 178 (30.4%) patients were excluded because of left bundle‐branch block (n=103) or right bundle‐branch block (n=75). Among the 407 remaining patients, 106 had ESP (26.04%). At a median follow‐up of 20.00 months (11.70–29.42 months), no impact of electric strain on overall and cardiac death could be established. By contrast, incidence of rehospitalization for heart failure was significantly higher (33/106 [31.1%] versus 33/301 [11%]; P <0.001) in patients with ESP. By multivariate analyses, ESP remained a strong predictor of rehospitalization for heart failure (hazard ratio, 2.75 [95% CI, 1.61–4.67]; P <0.001). Conclusions In patients with aortic stenosis who were eligible for transcatheter aortic valve replacement, ESP is frequent and associated with an increased risk of postinterventional heart failure regardless of preoperative left ventricular hypertrophy. ESP represents an easy, objective, reliable, and low‐cost tool to identify patients who may benefit from intensified postinterventional follow‐up.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Heger et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (n=585). Electrocardiographic strain pattern (ESP) vs. No electrocardiographic strain pattern was evaluated on All-cause mortality, rehospitalization for heart failure, myocardial infarction, and stroke (HR 2.75, 95% CI 1.61-4.67, p=<0.001). Electrocardiographic strain pattern in patients undergoing TAVR was a strong predictor of rehospitalization for heart failure (HR 2.75; 95% CI 1.61-4.67; P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: