Why the study?
Does early aortic valve replacement improve long-term outcomes compared to deferred surgery in patients with severe asymptomatic aortic stenosis?
Does early aortic valve replacement improve long-term outcomes compared to deferred surgery in patients with severe asymptomatic aortic stenosis?
This review suggests that early aortic valve replacement may offer superior long-term outcomes compared to the guideline-recommended watch-and-see approach for severe asymptomatic aortic stenosis.
Should not yet change practice in asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis; leaves open need for randomized confirmation of early intervention.
It is well established that the treatment of symptomatic aortic stenosis is timely aortic valve replacement. By contrast, the optimum treatment of severe asymptomatic aortic stenosis is not clear. There are no randomised controlled trials on which to base management. Current guidelines recommend a watch-and-see approach, with surgery deferred until symptoms develop, unless certain criteria, for example, severe left-ventricular hypertrophy or an abnormal exercise test, are met. This strategy is based on the observation that asymptomatic patients have a low risk of sudden death. It ignores, however, the long-term consequences of irreversible left-ventricular remodelling resulting from a high afterload, which could potentially adversely affect perioperative and long-term outcomes. Observational studies suggest that early aortic valve replacement provides long-term outcomes superior to deferred surgery. We suggest that clinicians should consider this approach when planning how best to manage patients with severe asymptomatic aortic stenosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Owen et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: