Atrial fibrillation in patients with severe aortic stenosis.

BACKGROUND: There has been no previous report evaluating the long impact of atrial fibrillation (AF) on the clinical outcomes stratified by the initial management [conservative or aortic valve replacement (AVR)] strategies of severe aortic stenosis (AS). METHODS: We analyzed 3815 patients with severe AS enrolled in the CURRENT AS registry. Patients with AF were defined as those having a history of AF when severe AS was found on the index echocardiography. The primary outcome measure was a composite of aortic valve-related death or hospitalization for heart failure. RESULTS: The cumulative 5-year incidence of the primary outcome measure was significantly higher in patients with AF than in those without AF (44.2 % versus 33.2 %, HR 1.54, 95 % CI 1.35-1.76). After adjusting for confounders, the risk of AF relative to no AF remained significant (HR 1.34, 95 % CI 1.16-1.56). The magnitude of excess adjusted risk of AF for the primary outcome measure was greater in the initial AVR stratum (N = 1197, HR 1.95, 95 % CI 1.36-2.78) than in the conservative stratum (N = 2618, HR 1.26, 95 % CI 1.08-1.47) with a significant interaction (p = 0.04). In patients with AF, there was a significant excess adjusted risk of paroxysmal AF (N = 254) relative to chronic AF (N = 528) for the primary outcome measure (HR 1.34, 95 % CI 1.01-1.78). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe AS, concomitant AF was independently associated with worse clinical outcomes regardless of the initial management strategies. In those patients with conservative strategy, paroxysmal AF is stronger risk factor than chronic AF.

Concomitant Mitral Regurgitation in Severe Aortic Stenosis　- A Report From the CURRENT AS Registry.

BACKGROUND: The clinical significance of concomitant mitral regurgitation (MR) has not been well addressed in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS).Methods and Results:We analyzed 3,815 patients from a retrospective multicenter registry of severe AS in Japan (CURRENT AS registry). We compared the clinical outcomes between patients with moderate/severe MR and with none/mild MR according to the initial treatment strategy (initial aortic valve replacement [AVR] or conservative strategy). The primary outcome measure was a composite of aortic valve-related death or heart failure hospitalization. At baseline, moderate/severe MR was present in 227/1,197 (19%) patients with initial AVR strategy and in 536/2,618 (20%) patients with a conservative strategy. The crude cumulative 5-year incidence of the primary outcome measure was significantly higher in patients with moderate/severe MR than in those with none/mild MR, regardless of the initial treatment strategy (25.2% vs. 14.4%, P<0.001 in the initial AVR strategy, and 63.3% vs. 40.7%, P<0.001 in the conservative strategy). After adjusting confounders, moderate/severe MR was not independently associated with higher risk for the primary outcome measure in the initial AVR strategy (hazard ratio [HR] 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-1.83, P=0.69), and in the conservative strategy (HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.93-1.37, P=0.22). CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant moderate/severe MR was not independently associated with higher risk for the primary outcome measure regardless of the initial treatment strategy.

Clinical outcome after surgical aortic valve replacement in low-risk Japanese patients with severe aortic stenosis.

Two randomized control trials demonstrated that transcatheter aortic valve implantation was associated with 1-2 year clinical outcomes comparable or even superior to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low surgical risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, no previous study has reported the clinical outcomes after SAVR in Japanese patients with low surgical risk. From 3815 consecutive patients enrolled in the CURRENT AS registry, we retrieved 220 patients who underwent SAVR in reference to the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the PARTNER 3 trial. Age and surgical risk score in the current study population were comparable to those in the PARTNER 3 trial (Age: 75 years versus 74 years, and STS-PROM score: 2.3 versus 1.9). The cumulative incidence of a composite all-cause death or stroke was comparable between the current study population and the SAVR patients in the PARTNER 3 trial both at 30-day (2.3% versus 3.3%), and at 1-year (4.1% versus 4.9%). The clinical outcomes of SAVR in low surgical risk patients with severe AS selected from a real world Japanese registry according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the PARTNER 3 trial was favorable and numerically comparable to those of SAVR patients in the PARTNER 3 trial.

Long-Term Impact of Diabetes Mellitus on Initially Conservatively Managed Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Although diabetes mellitus (DM) is a common comorbidity of aortic stenosis (AS), clinical evidence about the long-term effect of DM on patients with AS is insufficient.Methods and Results:Data were acquired from CURRENT AS, a large Japanese multicenter registry that enrolled 3,815 patients with severe AS. Patients without initial valve replacement were defined as the conservative group; among them, 621 (23.4%) had DM, whereas 1997 did not. The DM group was further divided into 2 groups according to insulin treatment (insulin-treated DM, n=130; non-insulin treated DM, n=491). The primary outcome was a composite of aortic valve (AV)-related death and heart failure (HF) hospitalization. Secondary outcomes were AV-related death, HF hospitalization, all-cause death, cardiovascular death, sudden death, and surgical or transcatheter AV replacement during follow up. As a result, DM was associated with higher risk for the primary outcome (52.8% vs. 42.9%, P<0.001), with a statistically significant adjusted hazard ratio (HR 1.33, 95% confidence interval: 1.14-1.56, P<0.001). All secondary outcomes were not significantly different between DM and non-DM patients after adjusting for confounding factors, except for HF hospitalization. Insulin use was not associated with higher incidence of primary or secondary outcome. CONCLUSIONS: In initially conservatively managed patients with AS, DM was independently associated with higher risk for a composite of AV-related death or HF hospitalization; however, insulin use was not associated with poor outcomes.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation vs. Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Severe Aortic Stenosis in Real-World Clinical Practice.

BACKGROUND: There are no data comparing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) outcomes in real clinical practice in Japan. METHODS AND RESULTS: We combined 2 independent registries, the K-TAVI Registry (a 6-center prospective registry of consecutive patients who underwent TAVI) and the CURRENT AS Registry (a large, 27-center registry of 3,815 consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis [AS]). In the K-TAVI Registry, 338 patients underwent TAVI with SAPIEN XT balloon-expandable valves from October 2013 to January 2016, whereas in the CURRENT AS Registry 237 patients with severe AS underwent SAVR from January 2003 to December 2011. Propensity score matching was conducted, with final cohort comprising 306 patients. The cumulative 2-year incidence of all-cause death and heart failure (HF) hospitalization did not differ significantly between the TAVI and SAVR groups (13.7% vs. 12.4% [P=0.81] and 7.9% vs 3.9% [P=0.13], respectively). After adjusting for residual confounders, there were no significant differences between the TAVI and SAVR groups in the risk for all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR] 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.35-1.58; P=0.43) or HF hospitalization (HR 1.27; 95% CI 0.40-4.59; P=0.69). CONCLUSIONS: These findings from 2 independent Japanese registries suggest that the 2-year risk of all-cause mortality and HF does not differ significantly between TAVI and SAVR groups in real-world practice in Japan.

A risk prediction model in asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis: CURRENT-AS risk score.

AIMS: Early aortic valve replacement (AVR) might be beneficial in selected high-risk asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS), considering their poor prognosis when managed conservatively. This study aimed to develop and validate a clinical scoring system to predict AS-related events within 1 year after diagnosis in asymptomatic severe AS patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed 1274 asymptomatic severe AS patients derived from a retrospective multicentre registry enrolling consecutive patients with severe AS in Japan (CURRENT AS registry), who were managed conservatively and completed 1-year follow-up without AVR. From a randomly assigned derivation set (N = 849), we developed CURRENT AS risk score for the AS-related event (a composite of AS-related death and heart failure hospitalization) within 1 year using a multivariable logistic regression model. The risk score comprised independent risk predictors including left ventricular ejection fraction <60%, haemoglobin ≤11.0 g/dL, chronic lung disease (2 points), diabetes mellitus, haemodialysis, and any concomitant valve disease (1 point). The predictive accuracy of the model was good with the area under the curve of 0.79 and 0.77 in the derivation and validation sets (N = 425). In the validation set, the 1-year incidence of AS-related events was much higher in patients with score ≥2 than in patients with score ≤1 (Score 0: 2.2%, Score 1: 1.9%, Score 2: 13.4%, Score 3: 14.3%, and Score ≥4: 22.7%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The CURRENT-AS risk score integrating clinical and echocardiographic factors well-predicted the risk of AS-related events at 1 year in asymptomatic patients with severe AS and was validated internally.

Age-Related Differences in the Effects of Initial Aortic Valve Replacement vs. Conservative Strategy on Long-Term Outcomes in Asymptomatic Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of the initial aortic valve replacement (AVR) strategy relative to a conservative strategy on long-term outcomes stratified by age among asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS).Methods and Results:Among 1,808 asymptomatic severe AS patients in the CURRENT AS registry, there were 1,166 patients aged ≥75 years (initial AVR: n=124, and conservative: n=1,042), and 642 patients with age <75 years (initial AVR: n=167, and conservative: n=475). Median follow-up interval was 1,280 (interquartile range [IQR]: 1,012-1,611) days, and 1461 (IQR: 1,132-1,886) days in patients aged ≥ and <75 years, respectively. The favorable effect of the initial AVR strategy relative to conservative strategy for heart failure (HF) hospitalization was seen regardless of the age stratum (≥75 years: adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.05-0.34, and <75 years: HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.14-0.99, interaction P=0.35). However, the lower mortality risk of the initial AVR strategy relative to conservative strategy was significant in patients aged ≥75 years, but not in patients <75 years, with significant interaction (HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.20-0.61, and HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.41-1.16, interaction P=0.016). CONCLUSIONS: The benefit of initial AVR in reducing HF hospitalization in asymptomatic patients with severe AS was consistently seen regardless of age. The magnitude of mortality benefit of initial AVR was greater in super-elder patients than in non-super-elder patients.

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).

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus conservative management for severe aortic stenosis in real clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is criticized by some as an expensive treatment in super-elder patients with limited life expectancy. However, there is a knowledge gap regarding the magnitude of clinical benefit provided by TAVI in comparison with conservative management in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) in real clinical practice, which would be important in the decision making for TAVI. METHODS: We combined two independent registries, namely CURRENT AS and K-TAVI registries. CURRENT AS was a multicenter registry enrolling 3815 consecutive patients with severe AS irrespective to treatment modalities between January 2003 and December 2011. K-TAVI was a multicenter, prospective registry including 449 consecutive patients with severe AS, who underwent TAVI with SAPIEN XT balloon-expandable valves between October 2013 and June 2016. In these 2 registries, 449 patients received TAVI and 894 patients were managed with conservative strategy. We conducted propensity score matching and finally obtained a cohort of 556 patients (278 patients for each group) for the analysis. The primary outcome measures were all-cause death and heart failure (HF) hospitalization at 2-year. RESULTS: The cumulative 2-year incidences of all-cause death and HF hospitalization were significantly lower in the TAVI group than in the conservative group (16.8% versus 36.6%, P<0.001, and 10.7% versus 37.2%, P<0.001). After adjusting the residual confounders, TAVI reduced the risks of all-cause death (HR, 0.46; 95%CI, 0.32-0.69; P = 0.0001) and HF hospitalizations (HR, 0.25; 95%CI, 0.16-0.40; P<0.0001) compared with conservative strategy. There was no difference in the cumulative incidence of non-cardiovascular death between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: TAVI in the early Japanese experience was associated with striking risk reduction for all-cause death as well as HF hospitalization as compared with the historical cohort of patients with severe AS who were managed conservatively just before introduction of TAVI in Japan.

Reasons for Choosing Conservative Management in Symptomatic Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis　- Observations From the CURRENT AS Registry.

BACKGROUND: There has not been a previous report on the long-term outcomes of those patients who refuse aortic valve replacement (AVR) despite physicians' recommendations.Methods and Results:Among 3,815 consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) enrolled in the CURRENT AS registry, the study population comprised 2,005 symptomatic patients, who were subdivided into 3 groups by their treatment strategy and the reasons for conservative strategy (Initial AVR group: n=905; Patient rejection group: n=256; Physician judgment group, n=844). The primary outcome measure was a composite of aortic valve-related death and heart failure hospitalization. Patients in the patient rejection group as compared with those in the physician judgment group were younger, and had less comorbidities, and lower surgical risk scores. The cumulative 5-year incidence of the primary outcome measure in the patient rejection group was markedly higher than that in the initial AVR group, and was similar to that in the physician judgment group (60.7%, 19.0%, and 66.4%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Patient rejection was the reason for non-referral to AVR in nearly one-quarter of the symptomatic patients with severe AS who were managed conservatively. The dismal outcome in patients who refused AVR was similar to that in patients who were not referred to AVR based on physician judgment despite less comorbidities and lower surgical risk scores in the former than in the latter.

Anemia in Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis.

Prognostic impact of anemia complicating severe aortic stenosis (AS) remains unclear. We assessed the impact of anemia on cardiovascular and bleeding outcomes in 3403 patients enrolled in the CURRENT AS registry. 835 patients (25%) had mild (hemoglobin 11.0-12.9 g/dl for men/11.0-11.9 g/dl for women) and 1282 patients (38%) had moderate/severe anemia (Hb ≤ 10.9 g/dl) at diagnosis of severe AS. Mild and moderate/severe anemia were associated with significantly increased risks relative to no anemia (hemoglobin ≥13.0 g/dl for men/≥12.0 g/dl for women) for the primary outcome measure (aortic valve-related death or heart failure hospitalization) in the entire population [hazard ratio (HR): 1.30; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.07-1.57 and HR: 1.56; 95%CI: 1.31-1.87, respectively] and in the conservative management stratum (HR: 1.73; 95%CI: 1.40-2.13 and HR: 2.05; 95%CI: 1.69-2.47, respectively). Even in the initial aortic valve replacement stratum, moderate/severe anemia was associated with significantly increased risk for the primary outcome measure (HR: 2.12; 95%CI: 1.44-3.11). Moreover, moderate/severe anemia was associated with significantly increased risk for major bleeding while under conservative management (HR: 1.93; 95%CI: 1.21-3.06). These results warrant further study to explore whether better management of anemia would lead to improvement of clinical outcomes.

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.

Asymptomatic versus Symptomatic Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis.

It is unknown how much different are the clinical outcomes between asymptomatic and symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). In the CURRENT AS registry enrolling 3,815 consecutive patients with severe AS, we compared the long-term outcomes between 1808 asymptomatic and 1215 symptomatic patients (exertional dyspnea: N = 813, syncope: N = 136, and angina: N = 266) without heart failure (HF) hospitalization. Symptomatic patients had greater AS severity, and more depressed left ventricular function than asymptomatic patients without much difference in other baseline characteristics. During a median follow-up of 3.2 years, aortic valve replacement (AVR) was performed in 62% of symptomatic patients, and 38% of asymptomatic patients. The cumulative 5-year incidences for the primary outcome measure (a composite of aortic valve-related death or HF hospitalization) was higher in symptomatic patients than in asymptomatic patients (32.3% versus 27.6%, P < 0.001). After adjusting for AVR and other variables, the greater risk of symptomatic relative to asymptomatic patients for the primary outcome measure was significant (hazard ratio 1.64, 95% confidence interval 1.41-1.96, P < 0.001). In conclusions, the excess risk of symptomatic relative to asymptomatic patients with severe AS for the aortic valve-related event was significant. However, the prevalence of AVR in symptomatic patients was not optimal.

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.

Acute Heart Failure in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis　- Insights From the CURRENT AS Registry.

BACKGROUND: Clinical profiles of acute heart failure (AHF) complicating severe aortic stenosis (AS) remain unclear.Methods and Results:From a Japanese multicenter registry enrolling consecutive patients with severe AS, 3,813 patients were categorized into the 3 groups according to the symptom of heart failure (HF); No HF (n=2,210), chronic HF (CHF) (n=813) and AHF defined as hospitalized HF at enrolment (n=790). Median follow-up was 1,123 days with 93% follow-up rate at 2 years. Risk factors for developing AHF included age, female sex, lower body mass index, untreated coronary artery stenosis, anemia, history of HF, left ventricular ejection fraction <50%, presence of any combined valvular disease, peak aortic jet velocity ≥5 m/s and tricuspid regurgitation pressure gradient ≥40 mmHg, and negative risk factors included dyslipidemia, history of percutaneous coronary intervention and hemodialysis. Respective cumulative 5-year incidences of all-cause death and HF hospitalization in No HF, CHF and AHF groups were 37.1%, 41.8% and 61.8% (P<0.001) and 20.7%, 33.8% and 52.3% (P<0.001). Even in the initial aortic valve replacement (AVR) stratum, AHF was associated with excess 5-year mortality risk relative to No HF and CHF (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.14-2.36, P=0.008; adjusted HR 1.47; 95% CI: 1.03-2.11, P=0.03, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: AHF complicating severe AS was associated with an extremely dismal prognosis, which could not be fully resolved by AVR. Careful management to avoid the development of AHF is crucial.

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.

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.

Sex Differences in Severe Aortic Stenosis　- Clinical Presentation and Mortality.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data on the sex differences in the prevalence, clinical presentation, and prognosis of aortic stenosis (AS).Methods and Results:A total of 3,815 consecutive patients with severe AS were enrolled in the multicenter CURRENT AS registry between January 2003 and December 2011. The registry included 1,443 men (38%) and 2,372 women (62%). Women were much older than men (79±10 vs. 75±10 years, P<0.0001), and the ratio of women to men increased with age. The cumulative 5-year incidence of all-cause death was significantly higher in men than in women (47% vs. 41%, P=0.003), although women were more symptomatic and much older. The 5-year mortality was similar between men and women at age <65 years (16% vs. 15%, P=0.99), whereas it was significantly higher in men than in women at age ≥65 years (65-74 years, 38% vs. 19%, P<0.0001; 75-84 years, 55% vs. 34%, P<0.0001; ≥85 years: 82% vs. 72%, P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: A large Japanese multicenter registry of consecutive patients with severe AS included a much higher proportion of women than men, with the female:male sex ratio increasing with age. The 5-year mortality rate of women was lower than that of men. Lower 5-year mortality rates in women were consistently seen across all age groups >65 years.