Etiology impacts survival in patients with severe aortic regurgitation: results from a cohort of 756 patients.

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: Severe aortic regurgitation (AR) is caused by a variety of mechanisms, which include the degenerative process, bicuspid aortic valve (BAV), aortic root dilation, endocarditis or a combination of these. Their frequency in a contemporary clinical series, and their impact on survival, are currently unknown. METHODS: The authors' echocardiographic database between 1993 and 2007 was screened for patients with severe AR, and yielded 756 patients. Detailed chart reviews were performed to acquire clinical and demographic data. Mortality data were obtained from the social security death index and analyzed as a function of the condition's etiology. RESULTS: The probable etiologies for AR were: degenerative in 29% of patients, BAV in 10%, aortic root pathology in 11%, endocarditis in 10%, and mixed or unclear mechanism in 40%. Survival was a function of the etiology (p < 0.0001), with degenerative mechanism having the worst prognosis and BAV the best. This differential impact on mortality remained significant after adjusting for age, gender, coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, renal insufficiency, left ventricular ejection fraction and aortic valve replacement, using the Cox regression model (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Etiology has a significant independent impact on mortality in patients with severe AR, with the worst survival being seen in degenerative AR.

Survival in patients with severe aortic regurgitation and severe left ventricular dysfunction is improved by aortic valve replacement: results from a cohort of 166 patients with an ejection fraction < or =35%.

BACKGROUND: Aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients with severe aortic regurgitation (AR) and left ventricular (LV) dysfunction entails a higher surgical risk. Though it may improve symptoms and LV size, it is not known whether it translates into a survival benefit. METHODS AND RESULTS: This retrospective cohort study included patients screened from our echocardiographic database between 1993 and 2007 for patients with severe AR and LV ejection fraction (EF) < or =35%. Charts reviews were conducted for clinical, pharmacological, and surgical information. Mortality data were obtained from the social security death index and analyzed as a function of AVR adjusted for the propensity score. Of the 785 patients with severe AR, 166 patients had severe LV dysfunction defined as an EF < or =35%: 69% of these were men, age 65+/-16 years, and LV EF was 23+/-8%. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that performance of AVR (n=53) was associated with a better survival (P=0.001). Adjusted for the propensity score, AVR was associated with a significantly lower mortality hazard (HR 0.59, CI 0.42 to 0.98, P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: There is a clear reluctance to offer AVR in a large number of patients with severe AR associated with LV dysfunction. However, the performance of AVR in these patients is associated with a mortality benefit supporting the current ACC/AHA guidelines.

Clinical and transthoracic echocardiographic predictors of abnormal transesophageal findings in patients with suspected cardiac source of embolism.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 20% of cerebral infarctions are caused by a cardiac source of embolism. Although transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is a valuable tool for evaluating patients with suspected cardioembolism, its use should be more selective. OBJECTIVE: We attempted to determine whether risk factors derived from the clinical, ECG, and transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) would make TEE use more selective and increase its yield. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 108 patients with suspected embolic stroke who had undergone TEE evaluation. We defined the presence of left atrial appendage spontaneous contrast (LAASC), left atrial appendage thrombus (LAAT), patent foramen ovale (PFO), or intraatrial septal aneurysm (IASA) as TEE endpoints suggestive of cardioembolism. We evaluated the association between the TEE endpoints and (1) age greater than 60 years, (2) the presence of atrial flutter (AFl) or atrial fibrillation (AF) on ECG, (3) left ventricular (LV) dysfunction by TTE (mild, LVEF < 40%; severe, LVEF < 25%), and (4) left atrial (LA) size > 4 cm also determined by TTE. The statistical analysis performed was one-way analysis of variance controlling for interactions between different risk factors and the endpoints. RESULTS The strongest independent predictors for the presence of LAASC or LAAT were age greater than 60 years, presence of AFl/AF, and LV systolic dysfunction. There was no association between any of the risk factors with the presence of PFO or IASA. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that clinical characteristics, ECG, and TTE findings can help to better select stroke patients for TEE. Future larger studies are needed to provide more supporting data.

Survival benefit of aortic valve replacement in older patients with asymptomatic chronic severe aortic regurgitation.

BACKGROUND: According to American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) is a class III indication for patients with asymptomatic chronic severe aortic regurgitation (AR), left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) greater than 50%, LV end-diastolic dimension less than 70 mm, and LV end-systolic dimension less than 50 mm. METHODS: We screened our echocardiographic database for all chronic severe AR patients between 1993 and 2007. Chart reviews were performed to collect clinical, demographic, and pharmacological data. Mortality was analyzed as a function of AVR. RESULTS: In all, 123 patients were found to have chronic severe asymptomatic AR; they had a mean age of 60 +/- 17 years and mean LVEF of 60% +/- 15%. A subgroup of 79 patients was found to have asymptomatic severe AR with an LVEF greater than 50%, LV end-diastolic dimension less than 70 mm, and LV end-systolic dimension less than 50 mm. By Kaplan-Meier analysis, patients not undergoing AVR had 1-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates of 86%, 71%, and 46%, respectively, compared with 100%, 94%, and 94%, respectively, for patients who underwent AVR (p = 0.004). Aortic valve replacement remained an independent predictor of increased survival after adjusting for group differences and univariate predictors of mortality. The benefit of AVR was further supported by propensity score analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Despite serving as a class III indication, AVR is independently associated with increased survival among patients with severe asymptomatic AR, LVEF greater than 50%, LV end-diastolic dimension less than 70 mm, and LV end-systolic dimension less than 50 mm.

Survival benefit of aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic regurgitation and pulmonary hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Severe pulmonary hypertension occurs in approximately 10% of patients with severe aortic regurgitation (AR). The potential survival benefit of aortic valve replacement (AVR) in these patients is not known, and was analyzed in a large cohort of patients. METHODS: Our echocardiographic data was screened for severe AR patients with severe pulmonary hypertension defined as pulmonary artery systolic pressure of 60 mm Hg or greater. Chart reviews were performed for clinical, pharmacologic, and surgical details, and survival data were analyzed as a function of AVR. RESULTS: Of the 506 patients with severe AR and measurable pulmonary artery pressures by echocardiography, 83 had severe pulmonary hypertension defined as a pulmonary artery systolic pressure of 60 mm Hg or greater. Severe pulmonary hypertension was associated with lower left ventricular ejection fraction (47% +/- 22% versus 53% +/- 19%, p = 0.006), larger left ventricular size (p = 0.03), and higher grades of mitral regurgitation (2.7 +/- 1.2 versus 1.7 +/- 1.1, p < 0.0001). Of the 83 patients with severe pulmonary hypertension, 32 underwent AVR, which was associated with better survival compared with patients who did not (1-year survival 90% versus 58% and 5-year survival 62% versus 22%, respectively; p = 0.004). After adjusting for comorbidities, AVR remained an independent predictor of better survival (hazard ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval: 0.22 to 0.92, p = 0.03). This survival benefit of AVR was further supported by propensity score analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Severe pulmonary hypertension occurs in approximately 16% of patients with severe AR and is associated with left ventricular enlargement with dysfunction and resultant mitral regurgitation. Aortic valve replacement is associated with an independent survival benefit in these patients.

Effect of beta-blocker therapy on survival in patients with severe aortic regurgitation results from a cohort of 756 patients.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to investigate the effect of beta-blocker (BB) therapy on survival in patients with severe aortic regurgitation (AR). BACKGROUND: Beta-blockers are thought to be contraindicated in patients with AR because a slower heart rate increases the duration of diastole during which AR occurs. But AR also causes neuroendocrine activation similar to a heart failure state for which BBs are potentially beneficial. METHODS: This is an observational study. Our echocardiographic database was screened for patients with severe AR. Detailed chart reviews were performed for clinical, demographic, and therapeutic data. Mortality data were obtained from the Social Security Death Index and analyzed as a function of BB therapy. RESULTS: Three hundred fifty-five (47%) of the 756 patients with severe AR were on a BB; mean age 61 +/- 18 years and ejection fraction was 54 +/- 19%. Over a mean follow-up of 4.5 years, BB therapy was associated with a higher survival rate (1- and 5-year survival rates of 90% and 70%, respectively) compared with those without (1- and 5-year survival rates of 75% and 55%, respectively) (p = 0.0009). The Cox regression model showed that BB therapy was an independent predictor of better survival after adjusting for age, sex, heart rate, hypertension, coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, heart failure, renal insufficiency, ejection fraction, and aortic valve replacement (hazard ratio: 0.74, 95% confidence interval: 0.58 to 0.93, p = 0.01). The survival benefit of BB therapy was further supported by propensity score analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This observational study strongly suggests that BB therapy is associated with a survival benefit in patients with severe AR.