The characteristics and outcomes in patients with acute heart failure who used tolvaptan: from KCHF registry.

AIMS: The use of tolvaptan is increasing in clinical practice in Japan. However, the characteristics of patients who used tolvaptan and the timing of its use in patients with acute heart failure (AHF) are not fully elucidated. METHODS AND RESULTS: Among consecutive 4056 patients in the Kyoto Congestive Heart Failure registry, we analysed 3802 patients after excluding patients on dialysis, prior or unknown tolvaptan use at admission, and unknown timing of tolvaptan use, and we divided them into two groups: tolvaptan use (N = 773) and no tolvaptan use (N = 3029). The prevalence of tolvaptan use varied widely from 48.7% to 0% across the participating centres. Factors independently associated with tolvaptan use were diabetes, poor medical adherence, oedema, pleural effusion, hyponatraemia, estimated glomerular filtration rate < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 , moderate/severe tricuspid regurgitation, dobutamine infusion within 24 h, and additional inotropes infusion beyond 24 h after admission. The mortality rate at 90 days after admission was significantly higher in the tolvaptan use group than in the no tolvaptan use group (14.3% vs. 8.6%, P = 0.049). However, after adjustment, the excess mortality risk of tolvaptan use relative to no tolvaptan use was no longer significant (hazard ratio = 1.53, 95% confidence interval = 0.77-3.02, P = 0.22). Patients with tolvaptan use had a longer hospital stay [median (interquartile range): 22 (15-34) days vs. 15 (11-21) days, P < 0.0001] and a higher prevalence of worsening renal failure (47.0% vs. 31.8%, P < 0.0001) and worsening heart failure (24.8% vs. 14.4%, P < 0.0001) than those without. CONCLUSIONS: AHF patients with tolvaptan use had more congestive status with poorer in-hospital outcomes and higher short-term mortality than those without tolvaptan use. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02334891 (NCT02334891) and https://upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000017241 (UMIN000015238).

Tricuspid regurgitation in elderly patients with acute heart failure: insights from the KCHF registry.

AIMS: Several studies demonstrated that tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is associated with poor clinical outcomes. However, data on patients with TR who experienced acute heart failure (AHF) remains scarce. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the association between TR and clinical outcomes in patients admitted with AHF, using a large-scale Japanese AHF registry. METHODS AND RESULTS: The current study population consisted of 3735 hospitalized patients due to AHF in the Kyoto Congestive Heart Failure (KCHF) registry. TR grades were assessed according to the routine clinical practice at each participating centre. We compared the baseline characteristics and outcomes according to the severity of TR. The primary outcome was all-cause death. The secondary outcome was hospitalization for heart failure (HF). The median age of the entire study population was 80 (interquartile range: 72-86) years. One thousand two hundred five patients (32.3%) had no TR, while mild, moderate, and severe TR was found in 1537 patients (41.2%), 776 patients (20.8%), and 217 patients (5.8%), respectively. Pulmonary hypertension, significant mitral regurgitation, and atrial fibrillation/flutter were strongly associated with the development of moderate/severe of TR, while left ventricular ejection fraction <50% was inversely associated with it. Among 993 patients with moderate/severe TR, the number of patients who underwent surgical intervention for TR within 1 year was only 13 (1.3%). The median follow-up duration was 475 (interquartile range: 365-653) days with 94.0% follow-up at 1 year. As the TR severity increased, the cumulative 1 year incidence of all-cause death and HF admission proportionally increased ([14.8%, 20.3%, 23.4%, 27.0%] and [18.9%, 23.0%, 28.5%, 28.4%] in no, mild, moderate, and severe TR, respectively). Compared with no TR, the adjusted risks of patients with mild, moderate, and severe TR were significant for all-cause death (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.20 [1.00-1.43], P = 0.0498, 1.32 [1.07-1.62], P = 0.009, and 1.35 [1.00-1.83], P = 0.049, respectively), while those were not significant for hospitalization for HF (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.16 [0.97-1.38], P = 0.10, 1.19 [0.96-1.46], P = 0.11, and 1.20 [0.87-1.65], P = 0.27, respectively). The higher adjusted HRs of all the TR grades relative to no TR were significant for all-cause death in patients aged <80 years, but not in patients aged ≥80 years with significant interaction. CONCLUSIONS: In a large Japanese AHF population, the grades of TR could successfully stratify the risk of all-cause death. However, the association of TR with mortality was only modest and attenuated in patients aged 80 or more. Further research is warranted to evaluate how to follow up and manage TR in this elderly population.

Public assistance in patients with acute heart failure: a report from the KCHF registry.

AIMS: There is a scarcity of data on the post-discharge prognosis in acute heart failure (AHF) patients with a low-income but receiving public assistance. The study sought to evaluate the differences in the clinical characteristics and outcomes between AHF patients receiving public assistance and those not receiving public assistance. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Kyoto Congestive Heart Failure registry was a physician-initiated, prospective, observational, multicentre cohort study enrolling 4056 consecutive patients who were hospitalized due to AHF for the first time between October 2014 and March 2016. The present study population consisted of 3728 patients who were discharged alive from the index AHF hospitalization. We divided the patients into two groups, those receiving public assistance and those not receiving public assistance. After assessing the proportional hazard assumption of public assistance as a variable, we constructed multivariable Cox proportional hazard models to estimate the risk of the public assistance group relative to the no public assistance group. There were 218 patients (5.8%) receiving public assistance and 3510 (94%) not receiving public assistance. Patients in the public assistance group were younger, more frequently had chronic coronary artery disease, previous heart failure hospitalizations, current smoking, poor medical adherence, living alone, no occupation, and a lower left ventricular ejection fraction than those in the no public assistance group. During a median follow-up of 470 days, the cumulative 1 year incidences of all-cause death and heart failure hospitalizations after discharge did not differ between the public assistance group and no public assistance group (13.3% vs. 17.4%, P = 0.10, and 28.3% vs. 23.8%, P = 0.25, respectively). After adjusting for the confounders, the risk of the public assistance group relative to the no public assistance group remained insignificant for all-cause death [hazard ratio (HR), 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.69-1.32; P = 0.84]. Even after taking into account the competing risk of all-cause death, the adjusted risk within 180 days in the public assistance group relative to the no public assistance group remained insignificant for heart failure hospitalizations (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.64-1.34; P = 0.69), while the adjusted risk beyond 180 days was significant (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.07-2.29; P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The AHF patients receiving public assistance as compared with those not receiving public assistance had no significant excess risk for all-cause death at 1 year after discharge or a heart failure hospitalization within 180 days after discharge, while they did have a significant excess risk for heart failure hospitalizations beyond 180 days after discharge. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02334891 (NCT02334891) and https://upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000017241 (UMIN000015238).

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.

Coronary angiography in patients with acute heart failure: from the KCHF registry.

AIMS: Little is known about the characteristics and outcomes of patients who undergo coronary angiography during heart failure (HF) hospitalization, as well as those with coronary stenosis, and those who underwent coronary revascularization. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed 2163 patients who were hospitalized for HF without acute coronary syndrome or prior HF hospitalization. We compared patient characteristics and 1 year clinical outcomes according to (i) patients with versus without coronary angiography, (ii) patients with versus without coronary stenosis, and (iii) patients with versus without coronary revascularization. The primary outcome measure was the composite of all-cause death or HF hospitalization. Coronary angiography was performed in 37.0% of patients. In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, factors independently associated with coronary angiography were age < 80 years [adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 1.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.41-2.20, P < 0.001], men (adjusted OR = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.03-1.59, P = 0.02), diabetes (adjusted OR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.02-1.60, P = 0.04), no atrial fibrillation or flutter (adjusted OR = 1.45, 95% CI = 1.17-1.82, P < 0.001), no prior device implantation (adjusted OR = 1.81, 95% CI = 1.13-2.91, P = 0.01), current smoking (adjusted OR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.05-1.87, P = 0.02), no cognitive dysfunction (adjusted OR = 1.90, 95% CI = 1.34-2.69, P < 0.001), ambulatory status (adjusted OR = 2.89, 95% CI = 2.03-4.10, P < 0.001), HF with reduced ejection fraction (adjusted OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.24-1.93, P < 0.001), estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥ 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 (adjusted OR = 1.93, 95% CI = 1.45-2.58, P < 0.001), no anaemia (adjusted OR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.02-1.59, P = 0.04), and no prescription of ß-blockers prior to admission (adjusted OR = 1.32, 95% CI = 1.03-1.68, P = 0.03). Patients who underwent coronary angiography had a lower risk of the primary outcome [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.58-0.85, P < 0.001]. Among the patients who underwent coronary angiography, those with coronary stenosis (38.9%) did not have lower risk of the primary outcome measure than those without coronary stenosis (adjusted HR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.65-1.32, P = 0.68). Among the patients with coronary stenosis, those with coronary revascularization (54.3%) did not have higher risk of the primary outcome measure than those without coronary revascularization (adjusted HR = 1.36, 95% CI = 0.84-2.21, P = 0.22). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute HF, patients who underwent coronary angiography had a lower risk of clinical outcomes and were significantly different from those who did not undergo coronary angiography.

Decline in Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction During Follow-Up in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the prognostic impact of the decline in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at 1-year follow-up in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) managed conservatively. BACKGROUND: No previous study has explored the association between LVEF decline during follow-up and clinical outcomes in patients with severe AS. METHODS: Among 3,815 patients with severe AS enrolled in the multicenter CURRENT AS (Contemporary Outcomes After Surgery and Medical Treatment in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis) registry in Japan, 839 conservatively managed patients who underwent echocardiography at 1-year follow-up were analyzed. The primary outcome measure was a composite of AS-related deaths and hospitalization for heart failure. RESULTS: There were 91 patients (10.8%) with >10% declines in LVEF and 748 patients (89.2%) without declines. Left ventricular dimensions and the prevalence of valve regurgitation and atrial fibrillation or flutter significantly increased in the group with declines in LVEF. The cumulative 3-year incidence of the primary outcome measure was significantly higher in the group with declines in LVEF than in the group with no decline (39.5% vs. 26.5%; p < 0.001). After adjusting for confounders, the excess risk of decline in LVEF over no decline for the primary outcome measure remained significant (hazard ratio: 1.98; 95% confidence interval: 1.29 to 3.06). When stratified by LVEF at index echocardiography (≥70%, 60% to 69%, and <60%), the risk of decline in LVEF on the primary outcome was consistently seen in all the subgroups, without any interaction (p = 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with severe AS with >10% declines in LVEF at 1 year after diagnosis had worse AS-related clinical outcomes than those without declines in LVEF under conservative management. (Contemporary Outcomes After Surgery and Medical Treatment in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis Registry; UMIN000012140).

Prognostic Impact of Aortic Valve Area in Conservatively Managed Patients With Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis With Preserved Ejection Fraction.

Background Data are scarce on the role of aortic valve area (AVA) to identify those patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) who are at high risk of adverse events. We sought to explore the prognostic impact of AVA in asymptomatic patients with severe AS in a large observational database. Methods and Results Among 3815 consecutive patients with severe AS enrolled in the CURRENT AS (Contemporary Outcomes After Surgery and Medical Treatment in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis) registry, the present study included 1309 conservatively managed asymptomatic patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50%. The study patients were subdivided into 3 groups based on AVA (group 1: AVA >0.80 cm2, N=645; group 2: 0.8 cm2 ≥AVA >0.6 cm2, N=465; and group 3: AVA ≤0.6 cm2, N=199). The prevalence of very severe AS patients (peak aortic jet velocity ≥5 m/s or mean aortic pressure gradient ≥60 mm Hg) was 2.0%, 5.8%, and 26.1% in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The cumulative 5-year incidence of AVR was not different across the 3 groups (39.7%, 43.7%, and 39.9%; P=0.43). The cumulative 5-year incidence of the primary outcome measure (a composite of aortic valve-related death or heart failure hospitalization) was incrementally higher with decreasing AVA (24.1%, 29.1%, and 48.1%; P<0.001). After adjusting for confounders, the excess risk of group 3 and group 2 relative to group 1 for the primary outcome measure remained significant (hazard ratio, 2.21, 95% CI, 1.56-3.11, P<0.001; and hazard ratio, 1.34, 95% CI, 1.01-1.78, P=0.04, respectively). Conclusions AVA ≤0.6 cm2 would be a useful marker to identify those high-risk patients with asymptomatic severe AS, who might benefit from early AVR. Clinical Trial Registration URL: www.umin.ac.jp . Unique identifier: UMIN000012140.

B-type natriuretic peptide in patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate the prognostic impact of the B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels in patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS), who were not referred for aortic valve replacement (AVR). METHODS: We used data from a Japanese multicentre registry, the Contemporary outcomes after sURgery and medical tREatmeNT in patients with severe Aortic Stenosis Registry, which enrolled 3815 consecutive patients with severe AS. Of those, 387 asymptomatic patients who were not referred for AVR without left ventricular dysfunction and very severe AS were subdivided into four groups based on their BNP levels (BNP<100 pg/mL, n=201; 100≤BNP<200 pg/mL, n=94; 200≤BNP<300 pg/mL, n=42 and BNP>300 pg/mL, n=50). RESULTS: The cumulative 5-year incidence of AS-related events (aortic valve-related death or heart failure hospitalisation) was incrementally higher with increasing BNP level (14.2%, 29.6%, 46.3% and 47.0%, p<0.001). After adjusting for confounders, the risk for AS-related events was incrementally greater with increasing BNP levels (HR: 1.97, 95% CI: 0.97 to 3.98, p=0.06; HR: 3.59, 95% CI: 1.55 to 8.32, p=0.03 and HR: 7.38, 95% CI: 3.21 to 16.9, p<0.001, respectively). Notably, asymptomatic patients with BNPlevels of <100 pg/mL had an event rate of only 2.1% at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Increased BNP level was associated with a higher risk for AS-related adverse events in patients with asymptomatic severe AS with normal left ventricular ejection fraction who were not referred for AVR. Asymptomatic patients with BNP levels of <100 pg/mL had relatively low event rate, who might be safely followed with watchful waiting strategy. TRAIL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN000012140.

Malignant disease as a comorbidity in patients with severe aortic stenosis: clinical presentation, outcomes, and management.

Aim: To investigate the effect of malignancy on the outcomes of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and the management strategy for AS with malignancy. Methods and results: Using data of 3815 patients with severe AS in a retrospective multicentre registry [CURRENT AS (Contemporary outcomes after sURgery and medical tREatmeNT in patients with severe Aortic Stenosis) registry], we compared 3-year clinical outcomes among three groups based on malignancy status: with malignancy currently under treatment including best supportive care (malignancy group), with a history of malignancy without any current treatment (past history group), or without history of malignancy (no malignancy group). Patients in the malignancy group (n = 124) were more often men and had higher prevalence of low body mass index, recurrence of malignancy, anaemia, and asymptomatic status, despite comparable surgical risks and echocardiographic parameters. The malignancy group or the past history group (n = 389) had significantly higher risk for all-cause death [hazard ratio (HR) 2.49, 95% CI (95% confidence interval) 1.98-3.14; HR 1.23, 95% CI 1.04-1.46] and for malignancy-related death (HR 16.2, 95% CI 10.64-24.54; HR 3.66, 95% CI 2.43-5.52) than that of the no malignancy group (n = 3302). The excess risk for aortic valve-related death was not observed in the malignancy group (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.48-1.29) and was lower in the past history group (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.53-0.96). In the malignancy group, the treatment strategy (surgery: n = 16, conservative management: n = 108) was determined based on the clinical status of AS or life expectancy. Conclusions: Malignancy had marked effect on all-cause death and malignancy-related death in patients with severe AS. History of malignancy also had a smaller but significant effect on mortality.

Causes of Death in Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis: An Observational study.

Whether patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) die because of AS-related causes is an important issue for the management of these patients. We used data from CURRENT AS registry, a Japanese multicenter registry, to assess the causes of death in severe AS patients and to identify the factors associated with non-cardiac mortality. We enrolled 3815 consecutive patients with a median follow-up of 1176 days; the 1449 overall deaths comprised 802 (55.3%) from cardiac and 647 (44.7%) from non-cardiac causes. Heart failure (HF) (25.7%) and sudden death (13.0%) caused the most cardiac deaths, whereas infection (13.0%) and malignancy (11.1%) were the main non-cardiac causes. According to treatment strategies, infection was the most common cause of non-cardiac death, followed by malignancy, in both the initial aortic valve replacement (AVR) cohort (N = 1197), and the conservative management cohort (N = 2618). Both non-cardiac factors (age, male, body mass index <22, diabetes, prior history of stroke, dialysis, anemia, and malignancy) and cardiac factors (atrial fibrillation, ejection fraction <68%, and the initial AVR strategy) were associated with non-cardiac death. These findings highlight the importance of close monitoring of non-cardiac comorbidities, as well as HF and sudden death, to improve the mortality rate of severe AS patients.

Prognostic Impact of Peak Aortic Jet Velocity in Conservatively Managed Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis: An Observation From the CURRENT AS Registry.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data regarding the risk stratification based on peak aortic jet velocity (Vmax) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). METHODS AND RESULTS: Among 3815 consecutive patients with severe AS enrolled in the CURRENT AS (Contemporary Outcomes After Surgery and Medical Treatment in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis) registry, the study population consisted of 1075 conservatively managed patients with Vmax ≥4.0 m/s and left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50%. The study patients were subdivided into 3 groups based on Vmax (group 1, 4.0 ≤ Vmax <4.5 m/s, N=550; group 2, 4.5 ≤ Vmax <5 m/s, N=279; and group 3, Vmax ≥5 m/s, N=246). Cumulative 5-year incidence of AS-related events (aortic valve-related death or heart failure hospitalization) was incrementally higher with increasing Vmax (entire population; 38.0%, 49.4%, and 62.8%, P<0.001; symptomatic patients; 55.7%, 60.9%, and 72.2%, P=0.008; and asymptomatic patients; 29.4%, 38.9%, and 47.7%, P=0.005). After adjusting for confounders, the excess risk of group 2 and group 3 relative to group 1 for AS-related events remained significant (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.07-1.81; P=0.02, and hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.17-2.00; P=0.002, respectively). The effect size of group 3 relative to group 1 for AS-related events in asymptomatic patients (N=479) was similar to that in symptomatic patients (N=596; hazard ratio, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.01-2.52; P=0.047, and hazard ratio, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.16-2.40, P=0.008, respectively), and there was no significant overall interaction between the symptomatic status and the effect of the Vmax categories on AS-related events (interaction, P=0.88). CONCLUSIONS: In conservatively managed severe AS patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, increasing Vmax was associated with incrementally higher risk for AS-related events. However, the cumulative 5-year incidence of the AS-related events remained very high even in asymptomatic patients with less greater Vmax.

Impact of the left ventricular mass index on the outcomes of severe aortic stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: To elucidate the factors associated with high left ventricular mass index (LVMI) and to test the hypothesis that high LVMI is associated with worse outcome in severe aortic stenosis (AS). METHODS: We analysed 3282 patients with LVMI data in a retrospective multicentre registry enrolling consecutive patients with severe AS in Japan. The management strategy, conservative or initial aortic valve replacement (AVR), was decided by the attending physician. High LVMI was defined as LVMI >115 g/m2 for males and >95 g/m2 for females. We compared the risk between normal and high LVMI in the primary outcome measures compromising aortic valve-related death and heart failure hospitalisation. RESULTS: Age was mean 77 (SD 9.6) years and peak aortic jet velocity (Vmax) was 4.1 (0.9) m/s. The factors associated with high LVMI (n=2374) included female, body mass index ≥22, absence of dyslipidemia, left ventricular ejection fraction <50%, Vmax ≥4 m/s, regurgitant valvular disease, hypertension, anaemia and end-stage renal disease. In the conservative management cohort (normal LVMI: n=691, high LVMI: n=1480), the excess adjusted 5-year risk of high LVMI was significant (HR: 1.53, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.85, p<0.001). In the initial AVR cohort (normal LVMI: n=217, high LVMI: n=894), the risk did not differ significantly between the two groups (HR: 0.96, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.55, p=0.88). There was a significant interaction between the initial treatment strategy and the risk of high LVMI (p=0.016). CONCLUSIONS: The deleterious impact of high LVMI on outcome was observed in patients managed conservatively, but not observed in patients managed with initial AVR. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN000012140; Post-results.

High- Versus Low-Gradient Severe Aortic Stenosis: Demographics, Clinical Outcomes, and Effects of the Initial Aortic Valve Replacement Strategy on Long-Term Prognosis.

BACKGROUND: There is considerable debate on the management of patients with low-gradient severe aortic stenosis (LG-AS), defined as aortic valve area <1 cm2 with peak aortic jet velocity ≤4.0 m/s, and mean aortic pressure gradient ≤40 mm Hg. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the CURRENT AS registry (Contemporary Outcomes After Surgery and Medical Treatment in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis), there were 2097 patients (initial aortic valve replacement [AVR] strategy: n=977, and conservative strategy: n=1120) with high-gradient severe aortic stenosis (HG-AS) and 1712 patients (initial AVR strategy: n=219, and conservative strategy: n=1493) with LG-AS. AVR was more frequently performed in HG-AS patients than in LG-AS patients (60% versus 28%) during the entire follow-up. In the comparison between the initial AVR and conservative groups, the propensity score-matched cohorts were developed in both HG-AS (n=887 for each group) and LG-AS (n=218 for each group) strata. The initial AVR strategy when compared with the conservative strategy was associated with markedly lower risk for a composite of aortic valve-related death or heart failure hospitalization in both HG-AS and LG-AS strata (hazard ratio, 0.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.37; P<0.001 and hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.67; P<0.001, respectively). Among 1358 patients with LG-AS with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, the initial AVR strategy was associated with a better outcome than the conservative strategy (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.59; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The initial AVR strategy was associated with better outcomes than the conservative strategy in both HG-AS and LG-AS patients, although AVR was less frequently performed in LG-AS patients than in HG-AS patients. The favorable effect of initial AVR strategy was also seen in patients with LG-AS with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index.htm. Unique identifier: UMIN000012140.

Initial Surgical Versus Conservative Strategies in Patients With Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines generally recommend watchful waiting until symptoms emerge for aortic valve replacement (AVR) in asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). OBJECTIVES: The study sought to compare the long-term outcomes of initial AVR versus conservative strategies following the diagnosis of asymptomatic severe AS. METHODS: We used data from a large multicenter registry enrolling 3,815 consecutive patients with severe AS (peak aortic jet velocity >4.0 m/s, or mean aortic pressure gradient >40 mm Hg, or aortic valve area <1.0 cm(2)) between January 2003 and December 2011. Among 1,808 asymptomatic patients, the initial AVR and conservative strategies were chosen in 291 patients, and 1,517 patients, respectively. Median follow-up was 1,361 days with 90% follow-up rate at 2 years. The propensity score-matched cohort of 582 patients (n = 291 in each group) was developed as the main analysis set for the current report. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of the propensity score-matched cohort were largely comparable, except for the slightly younger age and the greater AS severity in the initial AVR group. In the conservative group, AVR was performed in 41% of patients during follow-up. The cumulative 5-year incidences of all-cause death and heart failure hospitalization were significantly lower in the initial AVR group than in the conservative group (15.4% vs. 26.4%, p = 0.009; 3.8% vs. 19.9%, p < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The long-term outcome of asymptomatic patients with severe AS was dismal when managed conservatively in this real-world analysis and might be substantially improved by an initial AVR strategy. (Contemporary Outcomes After Surgery and Medical Treatment in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis Registry; UMIN000012140).