Concomitant Mitral Regurgitation in Severe Aortic Stenosis　- Insights From the CURRENT AS Registry-2.

BACKGROUND: Data on concomitant mitral regurgitation (MR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) are scarce.Methods and Results: We investigated the risk of concomitant MR in patients with severe AS in the CURRENT AS Registry-2 according to initial treatment strategy (transcatheter aortic valve implantation [TAVI], surgical aortic valve replacement [SAVR], or conservative). Among 3,365 patients with severe AS, 384 (11.4%) had moderate/severe MR (TAVI: n=126/1,148; SAVR: n=68/591; conservative: n=190/1,626). The cumulative 3-year incidence for death or heart failure (HF) hospitalization was significantly higher in the moderate/severe than no/mild MR group in the entire population (54.6% vs. 34.3%, respectively; P<0.001) and for each treatment strategy (TAVI: 45.0% vs. 31.8% [P=0.006]; SAVR: 31.9% vs. 18.7% [P<0.001]; conservative: 67.8% vs. 41.6% [P<0.001]). The higher adjusted risk of moderate/severe MR relative to no/mild MR for death or HF hospitalization was not significant in the entire population (hazard ratio [HR] 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95-1.39; P=0.15); however, the risk was significant in the SAVR (HR 1.92; 95% CI 1.04-3.56; P=0.04) and conservative (HR 1.30; 95% CI 1.02-1.67; P=0.04) groups, but not in the TAVI group (HR 1.03; 95% CI 0.70-1.52; P=0.86), despite no significant interaction (Pinteraction=0.37). CONCLUSIONS: Moderate/severe MR was associated with a higher risk for death or HF hospitalization in the initial SAVR and conservative strategies, while the association was less pronounced in the initial TAVI strategy.

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.

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.

Effects of Body Weight on Bleeding and Ischemic Events in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention　- From the CREDO-Kyoto Registry Cohort-2.

BACKGROUND: The effect of body weight (BW) on bleeding and ischemic events has not been adequately evaluated in real-world percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) practice.Methods and Results:12,690 consecutive patients undergoing first PCI in the CREDO-Kyoto registry cohort-2 were divided into 3 groups according to tertiles of BW stratified by sex (male; Tertile 1 [<60.0 kg], 2 [60.0-68.0 kg], and 3 [>68.0 kg], and female; Tertile 1 [<47.9 kg], 2 [47.9-55.8 kg], and 3 [>55.8 kg]). Cumulative 5-year incidences of the primary bleeding (GUSTO moderate/severe) and ischemic (myocardial infarction/ischemic stroke) endpoints increased incrementally with decrease in BW in both strata (male Tertiles 1, 2, and 3: 13.7%, 10.3%, and 8.0%, P<0.001, and 13.9%, 11.3%, and 10.2%, P<0.001; female Tertiles 1, 2, and 3: 17.9%, 12.9%, and 10.1%, P<0.001, and 17.9%, 12.9%, and 10.1%, P<0.001). Compared with Tertile 3, the adjusted risks of Tertile 1 for the primary bleeding and ischemic endpoints remained significant in the female stratum (hazard ratio (HR): 1.45, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.14-1.87, P=0.003, and HR:1.49, 95% CI:1.13-1.95, P=0.004), but not in the male stratum (HR:1.10, 95% CI:0.92-1.32, P=0.31, and HR:1.06, 95% CI:0.90-1.27, P=0.47). CONCLUSIONS: Cumulative incidences of bleeding and ischemic events increased incrementally as BW decreased in both men and women. The adjusted risks of underweight relative to overweight for bleeding and ischemic events were significant only in women.

Elective Non-Cardiac Surgery in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis　- Observations From the CURRENT AS Registry.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) might be at high risk for adverse cardiovascular events at the time of non-cardiac surgery.Methods and Results:The current study population included 348 patients who underwent elective non-cardiac surgery under general or spinal anesthesia during the follow up of 3,815 patients in the CURRENT AS (Contemporary outcomes after sURgery and medical tREatmeNT in patients with severe Aortic Stenosis) registry. There were 187 patients with untreated severe AS at time of surgery (untreated severe AS group) and 161 patients who had undergone aortic valve replacement (AVR) before surgery (prior AVR group), including 23 patients with prophylactic AVR. The primary outcome measure was 30-day mortality after non-cardiac surgery. At 30 days after non-cardiac surgery, 8 patients (4.3%) died in the untreated severe AS group, while no patients died in the prior AVR group (P=0.008). The causes of death were cardiovascular in 6 out of 8 patients. Mortality at 30 days was higher in untreated severe AS patients with AS-related symptoms before surgery than in those without AS-related symptoms (7.2% vs. 3.1%). Higher surgical risk estimates of the non-cardiac surgery incrementally increased the risk of 30-day mortality in patients with untreated severe AS, though the difference was not statistically significant (low-risk: 0%, intermediate-risk: 4.3%, and high-risk: 6.6 %, P=0.46). CONCLUSIONS: Symptomatic and asymptomatic severe AS might be associated with higher risk of 30-day mortality if untreated before elective intermediate- and high-risk non-cardiac surgery, while no patient with prior AVR died after elective non-cardiac surgery.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Five-Year Clinical Outcome of Asymptomatic vs. Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis After Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: There is discordance regarding the effect of symptom status before aortic valve replacement (AVR) on long-term outcome after AVR in severe aortic stenosis (AS).Methods and Results:The CURRENT AS registry is a multicenter retrospective registry enrolling 3,815 consecutive patients with severe AS. Among 1,196 patients managed with the initial AVR strategy, long-term clinical outcomes were compared between the symptomatic patients (n=905), and asymptomatic patients (n=291). Median follow-up interval was 1337 days with a 91% follow-up rate at 2 years. AVR was performed in 886 patients (98%) in the symptomatic group and in 287 patients (99%) in the asymptomatic group. Symptomatic patients were older and more often had comorbidities than asymptomatic patients with similar echocardiographic AS severity. The cumulative 5-year incidences of all-cause death and heart failure (HF) hospitalization were significantly higher in symptomatic patients than in asymptomatic patients (25.6% vs. 15.4%, P=0.001, and 14.2% vs. 3.8%, P<0.001, respectively). On landmark analysis at 30 days after AVR, the differences in mortality and HF hospitalization between the 2 groups were mainly observed beyond 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: When managed with the initial AVR strategy, the long-term outcomes of symptomatic severe AS were worse than those of asymptomatic severe AS. Early AVR strategy might be recommended in some selected asymptomatic severe AS patients with reasonable operative risk.

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.

In-hospital outcomes after SAVR or TAVI in patients with severe aortic stenosis.

There were no data comparing the in-hospital outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with those after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in Japan. Among consecutive patients with severe AS between April 2018 and December 2020 in the CURRENT AS Registry-2, we identified 1714 patients who underwent aortic valve replacement (TAVI group: 1134 patients, and SAVR group: 580 patients). Patients in the TAVI group were much older (84.4 versus 73.6 years, P < 0.001) and more often had comorbidities than those in the SAVR group. In-hospital death rate was numerically lower in the TAVI group than in the SAVR group (0.6% versus 2.2%). After excluding patients with dialysis, in-hospital death rate was very low and comparable in the TAVI and SAVR groups (0.6% versus 0.8%). The rates of major bleeding and new-onset atrial fibrillation during index hospitalization were higher after SAVR than after TAVI (72% versus 20%, and 26% versus 4.6%, respectively), while the rate of pacemaker implantation was higher after TAVI than after SAVR (8.1% versus 2.4%). Regarding the echocardiographic data at discharge, the prevalence of patient-prosthesis mismatch was lower in the TAVI group than in the SAVR group (moderate: 9.0% versus 26%, and severe: 2.6% versus 4.8%). In this real-world data in Japan, TAVI compared with SAVR was chosen in much older patients with more comorbidities with severe AS. In-hospital death rate was numerically lower in the TAVI group than in the SAVR group.

Life Expectancy of Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis in Relation to Age and Surgical Risk Score.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data regarding shorter life expectancy after aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). METHODS: Among 3815 patients with severe AS enrolled in the CURRENT AS (Contemporary outcomes after sURgery and medical tREatmeNT in patients with severe Aortic Stenosis) registry, there were 1469 patients (initial AVR: n = 647; conservative strategy: n = 822) with low surgical risk, 1642 patients (initial AVR: n = 433; conservative strategy: n = 1209) with intermediate surgical risk, and 704 patients (initial AVR: n = 117; conservative strategy: n = 587) with high surgical risk. Among 1163 patients who actually underwent surgical AVR as the initial strategy, patients were divided into 4 groups according to age <65 years (n = 185), 65 to 74 (n = 394), 75 to 80 (n = 345), and >80 (n = 239). The expected survival of the general Japanese population was obtained from the Statistics Bureau of Japan. The surgical risk was estimated using The Society of Thoracic Surgery (STS) score. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 3.7 years. The cumulative incidences of all-cause death were significantly lower in the initial AVR strategy than in the initial conservative strategy across the 3 STS groups. Shorter life expectancy after surgical AVR was seen especially in younger patients. The observed mortality in low-risk patients was comparable to the expected mortality across all the age-groups, while intermediate-risk patients aged <75 years, and high-risk patients across all age-groups had higher mortality compared with the expected mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The risk stratification according to age and STS score might be useful to estimate shorter life expectancy after AVR, and these findings have implications for decision making in the choice of surgical or transcatheter AVR.

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.

Acalculous Ischemic Cholecystitis Caused by Spontaneous Celiac Artery Dissection.

We herein report a case of spontaneous isolated dissection of the celiac artery. A Japanese man in his 50s visited an emergency unit, complaining of sudden epigastralgia. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography indicated dissection of the celiac artery with patent false and true lumina, extending to the splenic and common hepatic arteries. On day 3 of hospitalization, the dissection progressed to the proper and right hepatic arteries. Progression of the dissection to the right hepatic artery provoked acalculous ischemic cholecystitis, and cholecystectomy followed. The resected gallbladder revealed extensive aseptic necrosis with little inflammatory reaction, and the gallbladder neck was spared from ischemia.

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.

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.

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).

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.