Rationale, Design, and Baseline Characteristics of the CURRENT AS Registry-2.

BACKGROUND: There is scarce data evaluating the current practice pattern and clinical outcomes for patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS), including both those who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and those who were managed conservatively in the TAVI era.Methods and Results: The Contemporary outcomes after sURgery and medical tREatmeNT in patients with severe Aortic Stenosis (CURRENT AS) Registry-2 is a prospective, physician-initiated, multicenter registry enrolling consecutive patients who were diagnosed with severe AS between April 2018 and December 2020 among 21 centers in Japan. The rationale for the prospective enrollment was to standardize the assessment of symptomatic status, echocardiographic evaluation, and other recommended diagnostic examinations such as computed tomography and measurement of B-type natriuretic peptide. Moreover, the schedule of clinical and echocardiographic follow up was prospectively defined and strongly recommended for patients who were managed conservatively. The entire study population consisted of 3,394 patients (mean age: 81.6 years and women: 60%). Etiology of AS was degenerative in 90% of patients. AS-related symptoms were present in 60% of patients; these were most often heart failure symptoms. The prevalence of high- and low-gradient AS was 58% and 42%, respectively, with classical and paradoxical low-flow low-gradient AS in 4.6% and 6.7%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The CURRENT AS Registry-2 might be large and meticulous enough to determine the appropriate timing of intervention for patients with severe AS in contemporary clinical practice.

Matched comparison of catheter ablation versus conservative management for atrial fibrillation.

It is still controversial whether catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) could improve clinical outcomes in general AF population. Among 4398 patients with diagnosis of AF in the outpatient department of Kyoto University Hospital between January 2005 and March 2015, we identified 537 pairs of patients who received first-time catheter ablation (ablation group) or conservative management (conservative group), matched for age, gender, AF duration, AF type, AF symptoms, and previous heart failure (HF). The primary outcome measure was a composite of cardiovascular death, HF hospitalization, ischemic stroke, or major bleeding. Most baseline characteristics were well balanced between the 2 groups, except for the higher prevalence of low body weight, history of malignancy, and severe chronic kidney disease in the conservative group. Median follow-up duration was 5.3 years. The cumulative 5-year incidence of the primary outcome measure was significantly lower in the ablation group than in the conservative group (5.2% versus 15.6%, log-rank P < 0.001). Even after adjusting for the imbalances in the baseline characteristics, the lower risk of the ablation group relative to the conservative group for the primary outcome measure remained highly significant (HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.21-0.47, P < 0.001). Ablation compared with conservative management was also associated with significantly lower risks for the individual components of the primary outcome. In this matched analysis in AF patients, ablation as compared with conservative management was associated with better long-term clinical outcomes, although we could not deny the possibility of selection bias and unmeasured confounding.