Key result
Aortic stenosis risk stratification requires balancing intervention outcomes against the severity-adjusted risk of untreated events.
Why the study?
The introduction of transcatheter aortic valve implantation has renewed interest in optimizing patient management and evaluating the risk-to-benefit ratio for intervention in aortic stenosis.
Highlights the importance of careful risk-to-benefit evaluation in the management of aortic stenosis, especially with the advent of transcatheter aortic valve implantation.
Requires cautious risk-benefit evaluation before aortic stenosis intervention; leaves open prospective validation of updated stratification tools.
Aortic stenosis (AS) is now the most common indication for valve replacement in Europe and North America, with an ever increasing disease prevalence due to the ageing population (Iung B, Baron G, Butchart EG, Delahaye F, Gohlke-Bärwolf C, Levang AW, Tornos P, Vanoverschelde JL, Vermeer F, Boersma E, Ravaud P, Vahanian A. A prospective survey of patients with valvular heart disease in Europe: the Euro Heart Survey on valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J 2003; 24:1231-1243). The recent introduction of transcatheter aortic valve implantation has renewed interest in the optimal approach to patient management. Decision making in valvular heart disease necessitates a careful evaluation of the risk-to-benefit ratio, considering both the results of intervention and the severity-adjusted risk of adverse outcomes without intervention.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vahanian et al. (2010) conducted a review in Aortic stenosis. Risk stratification in aortic stenosis requires careful evaluation of the risk-to-benefit ratio, balancing intervention outcomes against the severity-adjusted risk of adverse events without treatment.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: