Current treatment of symptomatic aortic stenosis in elderly patients: Do risk scores really matter after 80 years of age?

BACKGROUND: According to the guidelines, surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is recommended in patients at low surgical risk (EuroSCORE II<4%), whereas for other patients, the decision between transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgery should be made by the Heart Team, with TAVI being favoured in elderly patients. AIM: The RAC prospective multicentre survey assessed the respective contributions of age and surgical risk scores in therapeutic decision making in elderly patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. METHODS: In September and October 2016, 1049 consecutive patients aged ≥ 75 years were included in 32 centres with on-site TAVI and surgical facilities. The primary endpoint was the decision between medical management, TAVI or SAVR. RESULTS: Mean age was 84±5 years and 53% of patients were female. The surgical risk was classified as high (EuroSCORE II>8%) in 18% of patients, intermediate (EuroSCORE II 4-8%) in 34% and low (EuroSCORE II≤4%) in 48%. TAVI was preferred in 71% of patients, SAVR in 19% and medical treatment in 10%. The choice of TAVI over SAVR was associated with older age (P<0.0001) and a higher EuroSCORE II (P=0.008). However, the weight of EuroSCORE II in therapeutic decision making markedly decreased after the age of 80 years. Indeed, 77% of patients aged ≥ 80 years were referred for TAVI, despite a low estimated surgical risk. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of risk scores depends strongly on age, and decreases considerably after 80 years, most patients being referred for TAVI, independent of their estimated surgical risk. Despite medical advancements, 10% of patients were still denied any intervention.

Prognostic value of residual vegetation after antibiotic treatment for infective endocarditis: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The prognostic impact of residual vegetation (RV) after medical treatment for endocarditis remains unknown. METHODS: 134 consecutive patients hospitalized for infective endocarditis, not surgically treated, with the presence of vegetation at diagnosis, were included retrospectively. The follow-up started at the end of antibiotic treatment when healing was complete. The presence or absence of RV was assessed at this time. The primary endpoint was a composite of the occurrence of embolic events, recurrence of endocarditis, or death from any cause. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients were men (63%), mean age was 69 ± 15 years, and median follow-up was 16.3 (IQR: 5-30) months. Sixty-six patients (49%) had RV, 15 (11%) had RV > 10 mm and nine (7%) had RV with an increase in size relative to that of the diagnosis. The primary endpoint occurred in 23 patients (35%) in the group with RV, and in 16 patients (24%) without RV, which was not statistically relevant (HR 1.70; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89-3.22; p = 0.10). Based on univariate Cox regression analysis, the occurrence of the primary endpoint was associated with RV that increased (HR 3.90 95% CI 1.61-9.43; p < 0.01), RV size (HR 1.05; 95% CI 1.01-1.09; p < 0.01) or RV > 10 mm (HR 3.35; 95% CI 1.51-7.39; p < 0.01). Only RV > 10 mm remained significant in multivariate Cox regression: HR3.29; 95% CI 1.20-8.96; p = 0.02. CONCLUSIONS: RV is frequent but has no clear prognostic impact in itself; however, its size, particularly in comparison with the start-of-treatment data, merits particular attention as being potentially associated with increased risk.

Who are patients classified within the new terminology of heart failure from the 2016 ESC guidelines?

AIMS: The main terminology used to describe heart failure (HF) is based on measurement of the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). LVEF in the range of 40-49% was recently defined as HF with mid-range EF (HFmrEF) by the 2016 European Society of Cardiology guidelines. The purpose of our study was to assess the clinical profile and prognosis of patients with HF according to this new classification. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 482 patients referred for HF were retrospectively included over a period of 1 year. There were 258 (53%), 115 (24%), and 109 (23%) patients with HF with reduced EF (HFrEF), HFmrEF, and HF with preserved EF (HFpEF), respectively. Patient age increased, whereas left block bundle branch, brain natriuretic peptide level, and the use of beta-blocker and furosemide decreased from HFrEF to HFpEF. After adjustment for the age, patients with HFpEF and HFmrEF were more likely to have NYHA stage 2 dyspnea, had a higher systolic blood pressure, were less likely to have spironolactone, had lower furosemide dose, and had lower haemoglobin than those with HFrEF. Cardiovascular risk factors and medical history were similar in the three groups of patients. There was a 33% death rate after a mean follow-up of 32.2 ± 14.3 months. The survival was the same among patients whatever the group of HF (P = 0.884). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF share the same cardiovascular risk factors, medical history, and prognosis. Patients with HFmrEF have a different clinical profile, which is nearly the same as patients with HFpEF, except for sex. These results question the relevance of this new classification of HF to stimulate research into this new group of patients.