Why the study?
Despite advances in diagnostic capabilities and therapeutic options for aortic stenosis, evidence suggests substantial underdiagnosis and care delays in real-world practice.
Does formal ICD-coded diagnosis of echocardiographically identified aortic stenosis improve the likelihood of receiving subsequent care?
Population
2366 moderate and 1327 severe aortic stenosis patients with first echocardiographic evidence
Comparison
Formal ICD-coded diagnosis vs no formal diagnosis, stratified by severity, demographics, and care setting
Design
Real-world database cohort study
Follow-up
One year
Key result
Formal ICD-coded diagnosis of aortic stenosis was associated with an increased likelihood of subsequent care in patients with moderate (HR 1.68, P<0.0001) and severe (HR 2.25, P<0.0001) disease.
Authors
Loading...
Delays in AS diagnosis after echocardiography may impact timely care; leaves open targeted strategies to address disparities.
Cohort (n=3,693)
Does formal ICD-coded diagnosis of echocardiographically identified aortic stenosis improve the likelihood of receiving subsequent care?
Hazard Ratio: 1.68
p-value: p=<0.0001
There is a substantial gap between echocardiographic detection and formal ICD-coded diagnosis of aortic stenosis, particularly among women and non-White patients, and formal diagnosis is strongly associated with receiving appropriate subsequent care.
Peterson et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Moderate and severe aortic stenosis (n=3,693). Formal ICD-coded AS diagnosis vs. No formal diagnosis was evaluated on Subsequent care (composite of follow-up imaging or aortic valve replacement) (HR 1.68, p=<0.0001). Formal ICD-coded diagnosis of aortic stenosis was associated with an increased likelihood of subsequent care in patients with moderate (HR 1.68, P<0.0001) and severe (HR 2.25, P<0.0001) disease.