What is the clinical evidence from this study?

Study design: Cohort. Population: Severe low-flow/low-gradient aortic stenosis without contractile reserve (n=81). Intervention: Aortic valve replacement vs. Medical management. Primary outcome: 5-year survival (HR 0.16 to 5.21, 95% CI 0.12-3.16 to 0.21-8.50, p=0.001).

What question did this study set out to answer?

To evaluate whether aortic valve replacement improves survival compared with conservative medical management in patients with severe low-flow/low-gradient aortic stenosis lacking contractile reserve on dobutamine stress echocardiography.

September 21, 2026Journal of the American College of CardiologyOpen Access

Outcome After Aortic Valve Replacement for Low-Flow/Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis Without Contractile Reserve on Dobutamine Stress Echocardiography

Q: What are the key findings of this study?

Aortic valve replacement was associated with significantly higher 5-year survival compared to medical management (54% vs. 13%, p=0.001) despite a high operative mortality of 22%.

Q: What does this research mean for the field?

In patients with low-flow/low-gradient aortic stenosis without contractile reserve, aortic valve replacement is associated with significantly higher 5-year survival compared to medical management despite substantial operative mortality. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.INCREMENTAL. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.NEUTRAL.

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Key result

AVR linked to ~41% greater absolute survival vs medical management despite high operative mortality.

Why the study?

The benefit of aortic valve replacement in patients with severe low-flow/low-gradient aortic stenosis without contractile reserve on dobutamine stress echocardiography remains controversial.

Comparison

Aortic valve replacement vs medical management

Design

Observational study with multivariable and propensity score analysis

Follow-up

5 years

Authors

CTChristophe TribouilloyCardiac Imaging FLFranck LévyScientific Centre of Monaco DRDan RuşinaruInterventional Cardiology

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Cohort study reveals improved five-year survival after aortic valve replacement in low-gradient aortic stenosis without contractile reserve, suggesting surgery should not be withheld.

Key Points

To evaluate whether aortic valve replacement improves survival compared with conservative medical management in patients with severe low-flow/low-gradient aortic stenosis lacking contractile reserve on dobutamine stress echocardiography.
Enrolled 81 consecutive patients with symptomatic calcified low-flow/low-gradient aortic stenosis (aortic valve area ≤1 cm², left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%, mean pressure gradient ≤40 mm Hg) and absent contractile reserve (<20% increase in stroke volume on dobutamine stress echocardiography).
Assessed overall survival between patients managed with aortic valve replacement (n = 55) versus medical therapy using multivariable proportional hazards modeling and propensity score matching (n = 42).
Five-year survival was significantly higher in the aortic valve replacement group compared with medically managed patients (54 ± 7% vs. 13 ± 7%, p = 0.001), despite an operative mortality of 22% (n = 12).
In 42 propensity-matched patients, surgical replacement maintained a significant 5-year survival advantage over medical therapy (65 ± 11% vs. 11 ± 7%, p = 0.019).
Aortic valve replacement was independently associated with reduced 5-year mortality (adjusted hazard ratio varying over time from 0.16 to 5.21 [95% CI: 0.12–3.16 to 0.21–8.50], p = 0.00026), while concomitant bypass surgery (p = 0.007) and mean pressure gradient ≤20 mm Hg (p = 0.035) predicted operative death.

Study Design

Type

Cohort (n=81)

PICO

Population

81 consecutive patients with symptomatic severe low-flow/low-gradient aortic stenosis and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% without contractile reserve, followed for 5 years.

Exposure / Comparator

Aortic valve replacement vs Medical management

Primary Outcome

5-year survival — HR 0.16 to 5.21 (0.12-3.16 to 0.21-8.50), p=0.001

Main Result

Effect estimate: HR 0.16 to 5.21 (95% CI 0.12-3.16 to 0.21-8.50)

Absolute Event Rate: 54% vs 13%

p-value: p=0.001

Cite This Study

Tribouilloy et al. (2009) conducted a cohort in Severe low-flow/low-gradient aortic stenosis without contractile reserve (n=81). Aortic valve replacement vs. Medical management was evaluated on 5-year survival (HR 0.16 to 5.21, 95% CI 0.12-3.16 to 0.21-8.50, p=0.001). Aortic valve replacement was associated with significantly higher 5-year survival compared to medical management (54% vs. 13%, p=0.001) despite a high operative mortality of 22%.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6ab0a176c4506eff882efdd7 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2009.02.026

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Implication

Cohort study reveals improved five-year survival after aortic valve replacement in low-gradient aortic stenosis without contractile reserve, suggesting surgery should not be withheld.

Outcome After Aortic Valve Replacement for Low-Flow/Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis Without Contractile Reserve on Dobutamine Stress Echocardiography

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Key Points

Study Design

PICO

Main Result

Cite This Study

Outcome After Aortic Valve Replacement for Low-Flow/Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis Without Contractile Reserve on Dobutamine Stress Echocardiography

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Key Points

Study Design

PICO

Main Result

Cite This Study

Also Consider

Also Consider