Prevalence and Prognostic Implications of Moderate or Severe Mitral Regurgitation in Patients with Bicuspid Aortic Valve.

BACKGROUND: Significant (moderate or greater) mitral regurgitation (MR) could augment the hemodynamic effects of aortic valvular disease in patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV), imposing a greater hemodynamic burden on the left ventricle and atrium, possibly culminating in a faster onset of left ventricular dilation and/or symptoms. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence and prognostic implications of significant MR in patients with BAV. METHODS: In this large, multicenter, international registry, a total of 2,932 patients (mean age, 48 ± 18 years; 71% men) with BAV were identified. All patients were evaluated for the presence of significant primary or secondary MR by transthoracic echocardiography and were followed up for the end points of all-cause mortality and event-free survival. RESULTS: Overall, 147 patients (5.0%) had significant primary (1.5%) or secondary (3.5%) MR. Significant MR was associated with all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 2.80; 95% CI, 1.91-4.11; P < .001) and reduced event-free survival (HR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.58-2.46; P < .001) on univariable analysis. MR was not associated with all-cause mortality (adjusted HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.85-2.07; P = .21) or event-free survival (adjusted HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.85-1.42; P = .49) after multivariable adjustment. However, sensitivity analyses demonstrated that significant MR not due to aortic valve disease retained an independent association with mortality (adjusted HR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.04-3.15; P = .037). Subgroup analyses demonstrated an independent association between significant MR and all-cause mortality for individuals with significant aortic regurgitation (HR, 2.037; 95% CI, 1.025-4.049; P = .042), although this association was not observed for subgroups with significant aortic stenosis or without significant aortic valve dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: Significant MR is uncommon in patients with BAV. Following adjustment for important confounding variables, significant MR was not associated with adverse prognosis in this large study of patients with BAV, except for the patient subgroup with moderate to severe aortic regurgitation. In addition, significant MR not due to aortic valve disease demonstrated an independent association with all-cause mortality.

Impact of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction on Clinical Outcomes in Bicuspid Aortic Valve Disease.

BACKGROUND: The prognostic impact of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) disease has not been previously studied. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the prognostic impact of LVEF in BAV patients according to the type of aortic valve dysfunction. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the data collected in 2,672 patients included in an international registry of patients with BAV. Patients were classified according to the type of aortic valve dysfunction: isolated aortic stenosis (AS) (n = 749), isolated aortic regurgitation (AR) (n = 554), mixed aortic valve disease (MAVD) (n = 190), or no significant aortic valve dysfunction (n = 1,179; excluded from this analysis). The study population was divided according to LVEF strata to investigate its impact on clinical outcomes. RESULTS: The risk of all-cause mortality and the composite endpoint of aortic valve replacement or repair (AVR) and all-cause mortality increased when LVEF was <60% in the whole cohort as well as in the AS and AR groups, and when LVEF was <55% in MAVD group. In multivariable analysis, LVEF strata were significantly associated with increased rate of mortality (LVEF 50%-59%: HR: 1.83 [95% CI: 1.09-3.07]; P = 0.022; LVEF 30%-49%: HR: 1.97 [95% CI: 1.13-3.41]; P = 0.016; LVEF <30%: HR: 4.20 [95% CI: 2.01-8.75]; P < 0.001; vs LVEF 60%-70%, reference group). CONCLUSIONS: In BAV patients, the risk of adverse clinical outcomes increases significantly when the LVEF is <60%. These findings suggest that LVEF cutoff values proposed in the guidelines to indicate intervention should be raised from 50% to 60% in AS or AR and 55% in MAVD.

Comparison of 1-Year Outcome in Patients With Severe Aorta Stenosis Treated Conservatively or by Aortic Valve Replacement or by Percutaneous Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (Data from a Multicenter Spanish Registry).

The factors that influence decision making in severe aortic stenosis (AS) are unknown. Our aim was to assess, in patients with severe AS, the determinants of management and prognosis in a multicenter registry that enrolled all consecutive adults with severe AS during a 1-month period. One-year follow-up was obtained in all patients and included vital status and aortic valve intervention (aortic valve replacement [AVR] and transcatheter aortic valve implantation [TAVI]). A total of 726 patients were included, mean age was 77.3 ± 10.6 years, and 377 were women (51.8%). The most common management was conservative therapy in 468 (64.5%) followed by AVR in 199 (27.4%) and TAVI in 59 (8.1%). The strongest association with aortic valve intervention was patient management in a tertiary hospital with cardiac surgery (odds ratio 2.7, 95% confidence interval 1.8 to 4.1, p <0.001). The 2 main reasons to choose conservative management were the absence of significant symptoms (136% to 29.1%) and the presence of co-morbidity (128% to 27.4%). During 1-year follow-up, 132 patients died (18.2%). The main causes of death were heart failure (60% to 45.5%) and noncardiac diseases (46% to 34.9%). One-year survival for patients treated conservatively, with TAVI, and with AVR was 76.3%, 94.9%, and 92.5%, respectively, p <0.001. One-year survival of patients treated conservatively in the absence of significant symptoms was 97.1%. In conclusion, most patients with severe AS are treated conservatively. The outcome in asymptomatic patients managed conservatively was acceptable. Management in tertiary hospitals is associated with valve intervention. One-year survival was similar with both interventional strategies.