Key result
In a multinational registry, 23.8% of symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis were denied valve replacement, while 36.3% of asymptomatic patients were assigned to undergo the procedure.
Why the study?
To assess contemporary severe AS treatment practice across Europe and identify characteristics associated with AVR denial in symptomatic patients and AVR assignment in asymptomatic patients.
What clinical characteristics are associated with discrepancies between guideline recommendations and actual treatment decisions for aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis?
Observational (n=2,000)
Yes
What clinical characteristics are associated with discrepancies between guideline recommendations and actual treatment decisions for aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis?
There are considerable discrepancies between guideline recommendations and real-world clinical practice in the treatment of severe aortic stenosis, highlighting a need to better align guidelines with the complete clinical spectrum of patients.
Observed AVR decision patterns in severe AS merit clinical scrutiny; leaves open whether identified factors predict outcomes in prospective studies.
OBJECTIVE: Approximately 3.4% of adults aged >75 years suffer from aortic stenosis (AS). Guideline indications for aortic valve replacement (AVR) distinguish between patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic severe AS. The present analysis aims to assess contemporary practice in the treatment of severe AS across Europe and identify characteristics associated with treatment decisions, namely denial of AVR in symptomatic patients and assignment of asymptomatic patients to AVR. METHODS: Participants of the prospective, multinational IMPULSE database of patients with severe AS were grouped according to AS symptoms, and stratified into subgroups based on assignment to/denial of AVR. RESULTS: Of 1608 symptomatic patients, 23.8% did not undergo AVR and underwent medical treatment. Denial was independently associated with multiple factors, including severe frailty (p=0.024); mitral (p=0.002) or tricuspid (p=0.004) regurgitation grade III/IV, and the presence of renal impairment (p=0.017). Of 392 asymptomatic patients, 86.5% had no prespecified indication for AVR. Regardless, 36.3% were assigned to valve replacement. Those with an indexed aortic valve area (AVA; p=0.045) or left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF; p<0.001) below the study median; or with a left ventricular end systolic diameter above the study median (p=0.007) were more likely to be assigned to AVR. CONCLUSIONS: There may be considerable discrepancies between guideline-based recommendations and clinical practice decision-making in the treatment of AS. It appears that guidelines may not fully capture the complete clinical spectrum of patients with AS. Thus, there is a need to find ways to increase their acceptance and the rate of adoption.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lauten et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Severe aortic stenosis (n=2,000). Aortic valve replacement (AVR) vs. Medical treatment (denial of AVR) was evaluated on Denial of AVR in symptomatic patients and assignment of asymptomatic patients to AVR. In a multinational registry, 23.8% of symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis were denied valve replacement, while 36.3% of asymptomatic patients were assigned to undergo the procedure.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: